Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 March 24

< 23 March	25 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 01:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eretz chess

No sources. Deleteable per Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 23:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Bubba73 (talk), 00:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable chess variation. ... discospinster _talk 01:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. 99.184.128.247 (talk) 01:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources on Google/News/Scholar. Matt (talk) 02:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bubba73. Several chess variants are covered in books on chess variants while some of the even more notable ones have been covered in more general chess volumes like the Oxford Companion, and even been played in competition. I see no evidence that this variant is among them, and with no sources whatsoever, I strongly suspect this of being unverifiable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per everyone. Krakatoa (talk) 16:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hekerui (talk) 02:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW delete. Only ghits are wikipedia, a commercial site selling the game, and a spam site that appears to pick up phrases from wikipedia articles and merge them together to produce junk articles. JulesH (talk) 09:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, in lieu of getting reliable third party sources asserting its notability. I frankly feel there is about a snowball's chance of there even being such things. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no source, no notability, all the rest is silence. SyG (talk) 19:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete due to having a snowball's chance. Punkmorten (talk) 19:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pontus Andersson

Subject does not meet criteria of WP:ATHLETE, playing for a team of unclear notability. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 23:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it on the site - He is a big player but he didn't take place at the "zon-läger". Thats means that the the bigger clubs doesn't know anything about him, he wold def take a place in a club from the second highest division superettan, in the Under-18 team ofc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ponge1992 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Above editor is the article's creator and may well be the subject -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this individual is 16 years old and plays in a local Swedish football club. The article fails WP:ATHLETE. Jim Ward (talk) 17:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - checked up on svwiki, and the seniors of Fortuna FF (which are mentioned only in the locality article sv:Rydebäck) play in division 5, i.e. way down the system. I agree that being a junior in a division 5 club doesn't constitute notability. Tomas e (talk) 09:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:Athlete, no notability as yet. Parslad (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Delete - youth player at a club whose first team players would struggle to pass the bar of notability, never mind the kids -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and all but first poster above for all the same reasons. ref WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTYN.--ClubOranje^T 08:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Icewedge (talk) 20:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Foodmaster Square

This would be just the sort of unusual article that one only finds at Wikipedia, if it were true. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be true at all.

The four sources cited in the article comprise 3 bus timetables (sic!) and an article about some other subject. None of them mention any "Foodmaster Square" at all. In a pointed irony, the bus timetables actually contradict the article. There is no mention of any bus stop called "Foodmaster Square" on any of them, in flat contradiction to the article which says that that's one of the stops. The article tells us that bus route 88 terminates at this point, for example. The cited source, that is supposed to back it up, tells us that in reality the route terminates at one of two places: Lechmere Station or Davis Square Busway.

I went looking for sources, and found nothing. There are no newspaper articles, books, or papers to be found documenting any such recognized place. And, as was pointed out in the first Proposed Deletion nomination (this article has in fact been put up for Proposed Deletion twice), the WWW's idea that there is such a place originates here, with this very article mirrored around many WWW sites since September 2007. The second Proposed Deletion nominator, six months after the first, came to the same conclusion. There are some fallacious "I'm a pseudonym. Trust me!" arguments on the talk page, but Wikipedia policy on Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research is clear. This article has no sources in support of any such thing, there are no sources to be found as far as I can determine, and the article is in direct contradiction with the supposed sources that it does cite.

It seems that this vandal, whilst still a vandal, did have a valid point. This is at best, a completely undocumented idea that hasn't entered the corpus of human knowledge. But given that, as the first Proposed Deletion nomination said, it's a parking lot outside of a grocery store, and the contents of the article are demonstrably false, it seems more probable that this is a complete fabrication, being defended with bogus arguments and sometimes outright personal attacks on editors who question its validity (see the talk page). Uncle G (talk) 22:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've just spent a not-very-interesting half-hour scouring the web and poring over online maps of Somerville. Would you believe there's even a Boston squares website?—And yet even that doesn't have anything. I can't source this article, so I'm forced to conclude it's disguised promotion.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not surprised. The genuine squares — or, at least, some of them — are extensively documented. There's a 6-page Transportation Research Board report on Davis Square, for example, that includes historical background, maps, and photographs. The absence of any similar thing here only lends further weight to the conclusion that this purported square is a fabrication. Uncle G (talk) 02:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sources don't show any notability. Genius 101^Guestbook 23:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:V, false references, probably disguised spam. JohnCD (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this article seems to be based upon someone's personal name for the area or a well-liked family term for the area--I live in Somerville and have never heard anyone call it this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.8.37 (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Of course I say this, because I proposed this deletion. I didn't realize it'd been proposed so many times before, under the same reasoning, but I guess there are reasons why it has. I already explained myself on the talk page, but really, it doesn't pass muster under Wikipedia:No_original_research (or even Wikipedia:Verifiability, if you consider that there are no sources offered that actually corroborate this concept's existence). Massachusetts (talk) 03:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. withdrawn by nominator.Non-admin closure—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revision history of Shahzada

This is not an english word. "Shahzadeh, simply is a persian word, meaning son of "Shah" or "Prince" and this is article is not notable at all. Existance of this article is not necessary as only "Shah" is well known in english language. Wikipedia is not a source of dictionary and perhaps if such explanations need to be given, they can be given under "Shah" and not here. Therefore deletion of this page is highly recommended as no useful information is given. Parvazbato59 (talk) 22:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Sorry, I also added the revision hostory of Shahzada page for removal. Here I would like to ask for withdraw of this request since I have already nominated the actual Shahzadah page for removal. Thanks. Parvazbato59 (talk) 23:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy del: WP:CSD A1: insufficient context to identify the subject. - 7-bubёn >t 22:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incredible Titans Chronicles

Delete nothing to indicate that notability of the subject. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. X clamation point 00:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nature of Abu Ghraib abuse

Content fork of Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse, which already covers the subject in depth. This appears to be a disconnected jumble of copy-pasting from various sources, violating WP:NOT#IINFO. I can't see much (if anything) worth the hassle of a merger, so deletion is probably appropriate. Sandstein 22:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. - 7-bubёn >t 22:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep the parent article is quite large, which is why this daughter article was created. The content hasn't really evolved enough though, the quality isn't great and could be summarised in the parent article. Or equally, details in the parent article (eg recent photos) could be merged here and the article cleaned up. The latter approach would benefit the parent article, allowing it to focus on the wider picture without getting bogged down in the details (the reason this article was created in the first place). Rd232 ^talk 23:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, the parent article could do with a split per WP:SS, but this random accumulation of facts is not the way to go about it. This article was created in 2005 and has not really improved since; also, what kind of topic is "Nature of Abu Ghraib abuse" anyway? Sandstein 07:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Random? To answer your question, it was the details of the abuse that actually took place, which circa 2005 was the subject of massive news-driven editing (WP:RECENTISM), so splitting it into a separate article was useful then. I've suggested why it might still be useful now. A name to change might help clarify the purpose - Details of Abu Ghraib abuse, say. By the way, with your "random" remark are you implying that these details are trivial, and shouldn't be in WP? It's not well done but it's hardly random. Rd232 ^talk 12:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pointless duplication. DGG (talk) 02:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete duplicate and obsolete. This article always seemed as though its primary purpose was because we had too many pictures for the main article. -- Randy2063 (talk) 14:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - just to point out that I disagree with the nominator's assertion that it's a content fork; rather it's a (neglected) Wikipedia:Summary style article. As a result if it is deleted there is some stuff that needs to be merged into the parent. Rd232 ^talk 22:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you still have a few days left to do that before the closure of this AfD, if you really think it is worth the while. Sandstein 23:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nedre

This is not an appropriate disambiguation page, as people will not search for Nedre (which means 'Lower') and expect to find these articles. Disambiguation pages should guide readers between multiple articles that share a common, plausible search term (i.e. John Smith, AAA, Springfield) Punkmorten (talk) 22:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Punkmorten. Nsaa (talk) 22:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the average WP user probably doesn't know that Nedre means "lower" and when searching for the village s/he wants may only know the generic part and will be glad to have available the possible specifics. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a precedent is "Deutsche" / Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deutsche. The page is of help for non-native language speakers. - 7-bubёn >t 23:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - because this type of disambiguation can be quite helpful for English speakers. But it may not be appropriate either-- see this guideline. Anyone care to clarify? — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 23:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there are multiple types of disambiguation pages. Tavix (talk) 23:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Linguist at Large, I wouldn't know that Nedre means low: this is a necessary disambig. Thanks, Genius 101^Guestbook 23:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not supposed to be a dictionary entry. Punkmorten (talk) 20:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to animal training. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cat training

Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. WP:NOTMANUAL applies. ttonyb1 (talk) 21:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. Locke9k (talk) 21:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blank and Redirect to animal training, or just blank and start from scratch. I would say no AFD is necessary to delete the material here and would recommend for speedily closing this, I don't really see what is gained by formal deletion. On the other hand, Cat Training is, in my opinion, a notable subject. Here's a relevant source in the CS Monitor: [1], and some other sources, less high-profile: [2], [3]. Here is a note documenting that people run seminars on cat training: [4] I would be inclined, in the long term, to want to keep a separate page on this, like Dog training. However, we could also start with a section on the animal training page and redirect there in the absence of any real material. Cazort (talk) 22:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Tavix (talk) 23:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Cats, perhaps they could take a look at it.--Lenticel ^(talk) 07:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The style of the article is not a reason to delete. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your sentiments here, Colonel Warden. This article could clearly be fixed through normal editing. AfD discussions should focus on whether the article should exist or not--not how bad it currently is. This is a funny example of a page that has no encyclopedic content of value, and yet clearly should exist according to WP:N. Cazort (talk) 14:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's OBVIOUSLY not an instruction manual. Hilary T (talk) 20:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons stated above. If an article on an encyclopedic topic is bad enough and isn't being improved, it probably should eventually be deleted, but this one is too new for that to apply. --mwalimu59 (talk) 22:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notability of the subject is established from reliable sources like this that cover the subject in a non-trivial manner. Them From Space 05:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to animal training. Current state of the article says nothing. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 14:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I look through the articles history, and see that much of it was erased for copyright violations, and then the rest erased because it was a step by step guide to train your cat to do things. Not much of the article left at all. What information can be added to this article? It was apparently originally intended to be a step by step guide, which Wikipedia doesn't allow. Can you make it an article about training a cat, and all aspects of it? Dream Focus 16:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As there are whole books devoted to this topic, it will not be difficult to write an article about the topic. And then there's the scholarly papers which seem quite scary:

Electrophysiological correlates of avoidance conditioning in the cat
Classical conditioning with auditory discrimination of the eye blink in decerebrate cats
Responding in the cat maintained under response-independent electric shock..

etc.

Colonel Warden (talk) 17:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great references to add, which make it a notable article. I say Keep. Dream Focus 18:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- it's certainly encyclopedic - or redirect, if we decide there is not much there, to animal training. Bearian (talk) 00:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at these 170 articles, I see plenty of scholarly work on point. Bearian (talk) 00:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable subject.--Caspian blue 19:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. There's nothing here. "Cats can be trained to do stuff" isn't an article. It isn't even a stub. This is already covered in animal training. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no article here and it's worse than a stub. Unsourced garbage should just go, "Cats can be trained to do stuff" indeed. This is also a content fork from the "trainability section of Cats. So many keep votes here, yet none of them have seen fit to take a joke of an "article" and even try to make it less embarrassing. But i digress... Cat training can be written about in the trainability section of the Cats article, its rightful home.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Keep. RadioFan2 (talk) 00:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5x5=25

Article ([[Special:EditPage/{{{1}}}|edit]] | [[Talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] | [[Special:PageHistory/{{{1}}}|history]] | [[Special:ProtectPage/{{{1}}}|protect]] | [[Special:DeletePage/{{{1}}}|delete]] | [{{fullurl:Special:WhatLinksHere/{{{1}}}|limit=999}} links] | [{{fullurl:{{{1}}}|action=watch}} watch] | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

~~No indication of why this exhibition is notable.~~ RadioFan2 (talk) 21:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – the deprodder commented on my talk page with a Google books link here that seems to show coverage from print sources that establish notability. I wasn't going to pursue the deprod any further after I looked at that. MuZemike 21:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a single book mention does not significant coverage make.--RadioFan2 (talk) 21:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you take a look at the search, it is actually 156 books. Tavix (talk) 22:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seem to be other articles on this that can be found on google. I have added another to the page. The article seems verifiable, and if verified it seems like an art show significant enough to be discussed almost 90 years later would be sufficiently notable for inclusion. Locke9k (talk) 22:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MuZemike's Google link. This has appeared in various print source, proving notability. Tavix (talk) 22:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I also find other sources, as Locke9k and Tavix point out. For a single exhibit, it seems to have gained quite a bit of attention. Here's a pretty extensive article about the exhibit: [5] Tons of material for a good article here. Cazort (talk) 22:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MuZemike's link (and others) given above. Looks like this is actually notable. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn its pretty clear that this has some historical significance.--RadioFan2 (talk) 00:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harriet Mead

Basically a resume rewritten to the third person. The fact that there's currently a "my" in the article leads me to believe that this is exactly what it is. Besides, nothing in the articles points in the direction of WP:BIO. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 21:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing my nomination, the new version establishes some notability - I assume that the award she won is indeed prestigious, which would satisfy WP:BIO. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 06:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No assertion of notability. Also a copyvio of [6] (if the page is nearly blank, Select All to reveal the text). I42 (talk) 21:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, unless evidence of notability is added before the end of the AFD. Locke9k (talk) 22:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless notability is established rather quickly. That's an interesting trick on the website. Text in paper colour, I suppose. (Hi-tech invisible ink...) Well discovered. I wonder why they've done it.... Peridon (talk) 22:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That should read screen colour, I suppose. Been working with paper-based text work for too long... Peridon (talk) 22:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Keep following alterations. Peridon (talk) 20:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:VERIFY (none). Nsaa (talk) 22:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found some sources: [7], [8], and [9]. Not public access but this does document her: [10]. Another source: [11] She may very well be notable! I'm leaning towards a Weak keep but as of yet I'm undecided...I await comment on the sources I found. Cazort (talk) 22:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian one looks good to me. The obit is a marginal reference establishing only existence. The Berwickshire one is reasonable, again in my opinion. The pdf I stopped after five minutes with no usable info having appeared. It would appear to be about ringing, which is possibly more relevant to her father. If you could tell us what's the important bit, it might help. Peridon (talk) 23:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only relevant section in the PDF is under "New Arrangements for the WSG Colour-marking Register". It doesn't do much more than establish that she's an artist, and is involved in the Colour-marking register and works with the National Centre for Ornithology...which I think is an interesting/relevant fact since as an artist, she works with wildlife. Cazort (talk) 04:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment I deleted most of the texts, since it is cut and paste from [12]. - 7-bubёn >t 23:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good job! I think this page is salvagable, albeit marginal. This page: [13] seems like it could be used as a source; it's from a non-profit organization which seems fairly reputable and isn't self-published like the other site, although I think it's important we also rely on the other sources as well as they seem "more independent". Also, this web source: [14] Cazort (talk) 04:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment I have revised the text taking into account the concerns raised above and hopefully now prove that Harriet is a notable artist, one of the best in her field, so I would request that you keep the article Drsteveb —Preceding undated comment added 10:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

keep the rewritten version. - 7-bubёn >t 21:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. X clamation point 00:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Francine Dee

After a thorough search, I couldn't find any reliable sources to back up her claims. She had a couple of minor roles in movies and a couple Playboy Special Edition cameos, but she never did anything major. Tavix (talk) 20:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite the page's longevity, there is still nothing there of any notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PORNBIO and WP:BIO. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 21:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per WP:ENTERTAINER. Only two minor roles per IMDB (not pornographic). Sources missing for Playboy appearance (and it's not a major one). Nsaa (talk) 22:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Bluemask (talk) 13:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per my original prod. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Although I find Hat Trick Indian's keep to be rather humerous. X clamation point 01:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Deratany

This is a non-notable lawyer and former Mayor. No reference or assertion as to why individual is noted, and town in which he was mayor of only has ~3,000 occupants. Tavix (talk) 20:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:POLITICIAN and general WP:BIO and WP:GNG. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 21:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The nominator did obviously not read the article he is disparaging. Mayor Deratany is not only a significant figure in Florida history, but also a major player on the world stage. Rick22225 (talk) 14:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith. I read through it and found out he was the mayor of a town of 3,000 people. Please show me references that show he had international notability. I'll also note your bias from being article creator. Tavix (talk) 23:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant notability, a major player neither on the world stage nor in Florida in general. perhaps in his small town, butt hat's not enough. DGG (talk) 02:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahaha, you said butt hat. Tavix (talk) 21:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as attack page. intended only to open its subject to ridicule. The page is obvious nonsense (a World War II veteran born in 1966! I Dream of Jeannie and Porkys aren't exactly contemporaries). The guy was a mayor until he was convicted on drug charges [15] and although he's been pardoned his return to politics seems to be at least a bit controversial. [16] Someone has it in for him. It also looks to me like Rick22225, Indialantic, Lgoldfarbtv, and Deratany123 may well all be the same user, given their specific interests and unconstructive editing. Assneck235 also fits the pattern but has already been blocked. This could use some looking into. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Total Keep. This artycle is the shiznit, yo! Hat Trick Indian (talk) 23:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. X clamation point 01:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Colson

I have removed the prod from this page and bought it here for discussion, it may not meet various notability guidelines, but it is a decent article, just needing reliable sources. An ignore all rules exemption may be appropriate if it can be sourced properly? I have no opinion on this article yet, but feel it should be deleted if it can't be improved. Jenuk1985 | Talk 19:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep under speedy keep ground 1. Wikipedia isn't cleanup, please don't bring things here unless you're certain they should be deleted. This is an excellent guide.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I had a PROD on this page and the proposer of the AfD removed it. It shouldn't be speedily kept because there are other people who think it should be deleted. I'm not sure why he bright i there instead of just leaving the PROD. But since it's here we need to discuss the merit of this article or lack there of. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 06:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have only bought it here because it is next to certain that if I didn't, someone else would have. Its a case for deletion, which I have put up for discussion, this IS the place for it. Jenuk1985 | Talk 21:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:ATHLETE. He may become notable in the future, but doesn't appear to be so now. The fact that the team he plays for apparently isn't notable (at least, it doesn't have an article, but I realize this doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't notable) also indicates his lack of notability. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 21:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails athletic guidelines as he isn't professional. Tavix (talk) 23:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I stand by my original PROD, the player isn't notable so shouldn't have a page here. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 04:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just to clarify WP:Athlete, it states that one must have participated in the highest level of amateur sports. While I admit that NCAAF-FBS is neither the Olympics or World Championships, I would also like to point out that it is the highest level of amateur American Football. This is not to say that I am defending this article, but wouldn't WP:V be more appropriate grounds at this time? After all, isn't Wikipedia supposedly about verifiability? 71.192.250.255 (talk) 05:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum Or for that matter Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Amateur_sports_people would also be a much better argument. 71.192.250.255 (talk) 05:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The "top" of college football is Bowl Championship Series which he never participated in that I can tell, if he did and theres reliable sources to say he did then maybe under that clause of WP:Athlete but I still feel hes not a notable player and isn't eligible for the draft anymore I think. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 06:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I'm sorry, did you read the first sentence of BCS? BCS is the championship format for NCAAF-FBS. The teams change every year for the bowls, but the membership in the division is what makes it the highest level of amateur competition. As a "for instance" UWV plays in a conference whose champion is gauranteed a spot in the BCS every year. But why are you belaboring the point? I've already given you better arguments for deletion. 71.192.250.255 (talk) 06:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - My original PROD was based on Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Amateur_sports_people. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 06:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. X clamation point 01:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tri-ism

Also File:Tri-ism.jpg

This article had a previously contested prod. I believe it fails WP:Notability. It purports to be an off-shoot of Unitarian Universalism; however, as an active UU, I have never heard of it. More importantly, a Google search reveals only a blog entry or two and wholly unrelated uses of the term. (There is a 1958 book with it in the title, but the subject matter appears to be completely different.) I think this falls, perhaps innocently, under "stuff some guy made up one day", which is covered in WP:NOT. Aleta ^Sing 19:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Aleta ^Sing 19:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: A notice of this discussion has been placed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion/Unitarian Universalism work group. Aleta ^Sing 19:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No results on google news, google scholar, or google books. Might want to consider nominating File:Tri-ism.jpg for deletion as well, as that is a self-created image seemingly created for use in this article. John Carter (talk) 19:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the nominator sums it up nicely, this fails WP:MADEUP. Tavix (talk) 20:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom. I also searched for the term on Google, including the name of the supposed originator, and reached the same conclusion. Totally made up. I note that the creator of the article, Eyeballus has made no other edits to Wikipedia, and that the supposed creator of Tri-ism, Patrick J Wilson has a DeviantArt account by the name of Eyeballus. Katr67 (talk) 20:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Strong delete". i agree completely with this deletion request —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.158.174.249 (talk) 21:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC) — 67.158.174.249 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete, WP:HOAX and WP:MADEUP. Don't forget to remove the redlink from the template once it's deleted. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 21:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed the link from the UU template already. Nothing in the article connects the topic directly to UUism. Katr67 (talk) 22:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of existence. - 7-bubёn >t 00:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I searched for sources, too. There are a few three-personalities theories in existence (Kenneth Burke has one.), but they aren't the bases for religions. Katr67 shows strong reason to believe that this is a deliberate hoax, rather than an innocent attempt at a genuine encyclopaedia article. This is original research, in any case. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 11:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. X clamation point 01:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Farhad Rostampour

Describes the subject's association with a single newsworthy event, thus fails WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS. If article survives the AfD process, it has substantial issues with WP:NPOV, as most of it was written by the subject himself and reads like a press release. Jim Ward (talk) 19:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I fixed it, which involved some savage cutting. I don't think this is a BLP1E or NOT#NEWS issue because this is a man who's notable for one moderately impressive accomplishment.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The first person to fly around the world in a plane like his was notable; the first Iranian-born (or whatever country] person is not. DGG (talk) 02:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable achievement per DGG. Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non notable WP:ONEEVENT. As pointed out - being the first person is probably notable enough to build an article on - being the first of a subset is worth a mention if there is other notability. Nuttah (talk) 11:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. X clamation point 01:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Burgan

There are no reliable sources indicating notability, and the other person indicated as a partner of Derek, Peter Zed, is also an AfD candidate article started by the same person who started this article. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 19:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Non-notable person, and his website doesn't pass WP:WEB either. Laurent (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks independent sources to verify any notability. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, unverifiable. I42 (talk) 07:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Vanezis

Non-notable, vanity page. I believe the Doctor Who Restoration Team article is valid and notable. However, individual pages for members seems most unencyclopedic. No sources either. Troughtonfan (talk) 16:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BIO. Common sense also tells me that this subject isn't notable as a director/producer. OlYeller^Talktome 16:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As for reasons I stated above, and also OlYeller21 makes very strong points too. Troughtonfan (talk) 15:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources, not significantly worthy of a Wikipedia entry. Newsonicscrewdriver2 (talk) 10:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 19:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Ecclesiastes 1:2. Them From Space 19:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:What the hell is this discussion? Bunch of socks, and a guy using biblical passages to justify a deletion?? This reeks of disruption.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 10:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Obscure member of unknown team with no references or citations. K'Anpo (talk) 13:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Blu-ray software

Delete not a useful list; would we have List of CD software or List of DVD software or List of floppy disk software to list all software that can access those kinds of media; would they be useful either? WP:NOT an indisciminant collection or a software directory. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - while this certainly doesn't look like a very useful list (with one entry, no less), perhaps the rationale for creating this is that it's a relatively new technology and very few pieces of software support it. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, we do have a list of DVD-playing software here. For this reason, unless someone spots a more comprehensive article we can redirect this to, keep. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that was my reason, I think it is helpful since software is so hard to find. I did have a good look around but ended up finding and buying PowerDVD just because nothing else seems to have the proper support for all the stuff for the discs... --Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 07:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The list Media player (application software) does not purport to be all DVD-playing software only a subset, but perhaps a redirect there, since Blu-ray fits that article's definition of "media". Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - That article is not helpful to people looking for either DVD or Blu-Ray players as it only says whether it plays video, which is totally meaningless when there are three disc formats (CD-video, DVD, Blu-Ray) as well as all the PC video "codec" formats...

Just because it's quite empty at the moment isn't really a valid reason to delete, I knew it looked empty but the solution is to improve it (it'd help if there was some kind of external list but I couldn't find anything on blu-ray.com etc via google) not delete just because it doesn't meet your standard from the start... --Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 07:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the more general Media player (application software). --neon white talk 08:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article stands its empty. If the article would be fully developed it wouldn't comply with the policies and guidelines because Wikipedia isn't a directory, nor is it an indiscriminate collection of information. Them From Space 18:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 19:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete first of all because it does not have sufficient information and references to be kept as an article and be notable and secondly, such softwares can be named under articles like "blue-ray" and I am sure in articles like Blue-ray, there is a section as "software" and all these softwares can be added there and there is no need for making a separate article. Poeple generally search for key words like "Blue-ray" and usually do not search for all the words together. Parvazbato59 (talk) 19:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, one item is not a list! Tavix (talk) 19:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – not yet! Maybe at a future time when Blu-ray becomes more common, but not now. MuZemike 22:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stupid comment – this reminds me of the episode of The Simpsons where the German guys who bought the power plant from Mr. Burns announced the list of lay-offs in alphabetical order: "Simpson, Homer. That is all." MuZemike 22:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. BJ^Talk 00:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chess Club and Scholastic Center of Saint Louis

The notability is unclear to me. This is a new chess club, and it will host the US Women Championship in 2009, but is that enough to be notable in itself ? Seing the references, there are no independent sources that talk about this club. SyG (talk) 19:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. There's a good article on the club here but nothing else to show it's notable outside of St. Louis, as far as I'm aware. Until it actually hosts the Championship, fails WP:NOT. Ottre 21:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment I guess you mean WP:NOTE for notability rather then WP:NOT for what wikipedia is not?. IF WP:NOT, what part does it fail? As this is a non-profit organisation the relevant notability criteria to meet is WP:ORG. That is turn IMO boils down to having sufficient reliable sources(WP:RS). SunCreator (talk) 00:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did mean WP:NOTE. In fact, trying to cut down on the abbreviations, would have said cyclopedic rather than WP:NOT. The club should be seen as a precinct. Ottre 12:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:RS found. http://stlouis.bizjournals.com/stlouis/stories/2009/03/16/daily4.html SunCreator (talk) 00:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a reliable source. Ottre 11:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Why not? It looks reliable to me... Tavix (talk) 20:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it seems to have gotten some real coverage and to be somewhat notable in St. Louis. Carlo (talk) 04:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Question There is a lot of information in this article that seems likely to be unverifiable from third party sources - things like their interior layout and decoration. If all of that is removed, is there anything notable left? Locke9k (talk) 16:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Follow-up It seems like the only remaining notable content would be regarding the 2009 women's chess championship. In that case should we just create an article on that instead and delete this one? Locke9k (talk) 16:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 19:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep, Notability has been met. They are hosting a national tournament among other things and are mentioned in a couple of reliable sources including the USCF website [17] Tavix (talk) 20:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Delete per the article's current copyvio status. Tavix (talk) 22:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless further evidence for notability can be established. See Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). In particular, "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources." Also, "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." The articles referenced here are actually articles on the national tournament. The club is only mentioned as the location of the tournament. Based on these references, it would be more appropriate to create a page on 2009 U.S. Women’s Chess Championship that could mention this club. Locke9k (talk) 20:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, a lot of the content on this page is just copy/pasted from the club webpage. The article reads more like promotional material than like an article. Locke9k (talk) 20:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Copyvio. Locke9k is correct. Original source, Terms of use. A clear case. Blanking accordingly.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think this is a clear case for deletion, unless someone comes up with something that is notable AND isn't a copyright violation. Bubba73 (talk), 21:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a copyvio. MuZemike 22:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. X clamation point 01:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tarek Khalil Atallah

Notability is not established. The only search results are releted to this Wikipedia article. Beagel (talk) 18:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is also mirror page Tarek Atallah, which should be also deleted. Made a redirect for now. A template containing same text as this article is also nominated for deletion (see: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 March 25#March 25#Template:Tarek Khalil Atallah. Beagel (talk) 05:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As above, it looks unciteable, so we have a major issue here. Colds7ream (talk) 18:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack the independant sources needed to show notability. Edward321 (talk) 23:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO and WP:V. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Valley2city^‽ 02:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Manshino

Artist who's released a few albums on minor labels, but doesn't seem to meet any of the criteria for notable musicians. Google hits are pretty bare, and it seems pretty likely he hasn't received any kind of coverage from reliable sources. Also see this AFD for one of the groups he's in. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 16:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: trivial coverage. as pointed out, his group The Iconz was recently deleted on the grounds of non-notability. JamesBurns (talk) 08:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, concur with reasons from James Burns. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Valley2city^‽ 18:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Johnny B. Goode, which I have now completed. NAC. JulesH (talk) 09:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny B Goode (Jimi Hendrix song)

Delete and as appropriate, merge content into Johnny B. Goode. The article is about one cover of the song. In my observation, it's rare for even highly notable covers of a song to have separate Wikipedia articles, and this cover version is not all that notable. mwalimu59 (talk) 18:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —mwalimu59 (talk) 18:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the main article: nominator, you could have done that without going to AfD. There is information in the article, and it is relevant, so a merge is the best way to go. Drmies (talk) 20:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Johnny B. Goode. JamesBurns (talk) 02:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per JamesBurns and mwalimu59. Rlendog (talk) 22:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Destruction in 15 (band)

Spamming of a band that falls well short of meeting WP:BAND (or any other notability requirement} by an account that appears to have a strong conflict of interest. Also including:

The numerous other articles that links have been added to will need cleaning up as well Nuttah (talk) 18:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:NOTABILITY. Colds7ream (talk) 18:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--there is no notability here; a Google news search returns zero hits for the band. They have no albums on notable labels, no charted singles, no coverage. Drmies (talk) 20:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: trivial coverage. Non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 02:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete': I disagree, I think a band that has fans and DOES have albums (on indie labels) should be able to provide info on them and the band for fans and anyone to read and update. So just because you don't feel it's important doesn't mean the fans don't. I thought Wikipedia was about info for the public not for a few people to dominate what can and can't be read, information is information. Porkie123 (talk) 13:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - no reliable coverage. A-Kartoffel (talk) 07:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom. COI. Deletion Mutation 16:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC) N.B. !vote of sockpuppet of blocked user struck through. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. X clamation point 01:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Finnesse

Bio of a non-notable musician which does not explain why this person is notable Astronaut (talk) 18:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - name-droppping is no substitute for reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 22:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Failed WP:MUSIC. Probably should have been speedy deleted. Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is nothing here that meets WP:MUSIC or any other notability guideline. Nuttah (talk) 11:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 01:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It (MSI Singles)

Limited edition collector's item package that simply bundles 3 separate singles together and was only available to North Americans who ordered an album directly from the band. Non-notable, fails WP:NALBUMS. Prod removed without comment. TheJazzDalek (talk) 19:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —TheJazzDalek (talk) 19:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting release if you ask me. Merge & redirect to If.--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 19:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS . Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 22:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-charting non-notable album WP:NALBUMS. JamesBurns (talk) 01:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a notable release on the dance charts. I question the motivations of the person who nominated it as well, as he/she has suggested other MSI articles for deletion.98.220.43.195 (talk) 20:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Two of the three singles in this bundle charted, that's why those songs have their own articles. This package under discussion did not chart anywhere, and is only three singles wrapped up together; not a CD compiled from singles—3 separate CD singles stuck together. It's an extremely limited fan/collector's item with absolutely no notability. There's no media coverage of It, It did not chart, and It does not inherit notability from the individual singles. Additionally, please assume good faith—I have been cleaning up the immense collection of articles surrounding this band. Some non-notable articles have been deleted, yes, but I have also added proof of notability to some of their articles that previously had none (or didn't even claim notability). The intention is to improve the project; I don't have anything against this clearly notable band. TheJazzDalek (talk) 21:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Ged UK 17:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability for the collection. Duffbeerforme (talk) 04:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable coverage. A-Kartoffel (talk) 07:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Giovannini

Non-notable cartoonist (failing WP:CREATIVE). All Google hits for ""Brian Giovannini" "postage due""[18] appear to be mirrors of his Wikipedia article, or self-published sources. The impressive number of mirrors is due to the article's creation date, back in 2003. The author's defunct web site provided a list of community, local or university newspapers where the comics was apparently published [19] (see also [20]). I haven't found any independent, third-party sources to verify this however, and the publication in none of these local newspapers seems sufficient to establish notability anyway. Delete. Edcolins (talk) 19:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I remember that the comic was featured in a local paper when I was a student, and I remember he just barely passed the thresh-hold for notability back in 2006. Now that the comic is gone and his blog has gone under [21], much more troublesome. I would recommended a merged and redirect into Haynes & Boone if anyone can find a source saying that he works there. --Rayc (talk) 02:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No merge please. His cartoonist activity appears in no way linked to Haynes & Boone [22]. --Edcolins (talk) 21:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm honestly not exactly sure what to make of this "article". One thing that bothers me though is that one should not need to have an online presence, or even a "current" presence to be "notable". Jack Benny (or even Lenny Bruce), comes to mind. The article is not a hoax, and was a published comics creator. What's the "dividing line" to determine if a published artist is "notable" for the published work? - jc37 10:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should be covered in multiple reliable sources, same as for everything. I would say such coverage of any of his works would also be enough. If there is no web presence, then offline sources are required, not no sources. As this one is a lawyer, it seems comic creation is just a hobby of his? Which explains why no sources - he is not notable?YobMod 11:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:NOTABILITY. A google search was unable to locate multiple independent sources to support notability. Untick (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've not managed to find these newspapers that carried 'Postage Due', but if they are as notable as the Des Moines Comic Outlet seems to be, I don't think we need worry. Hobbies can sometimes be notable - Alexander Borodin being an example. I can find far more evidence for Brian Giovannini being a lawyer than being a cartoonist, which suggests that there isn't much once one discounts the mirrors. If the creator of the article - or ANYONE - HAS got any references, would s/he/they please post them. Peridon (talk) 15:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Ged UK 17:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to indicate notability as a cartoonist. No merge, nothing to indicate notability as a lawyer either.Yob Mod 20:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. This seems somewhat contentious, but there is no consensus for deletion. What the discussion is principally centred on is a titling/merge debate, and AfD is not the correct forum for this sensitive issue. I suggest participants open up discussions to outside input regarding these editorial matters Fritzpoll (talk) 09:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guerrilla phase of the Second Chechen War (2009)

There is a huge original research problem with this article. The name of the article is where it stems from. The war in Chechnya is for all intents and purposes over. Dagestan, Ingushetia and Kabardino-Balkaria are NOT Chechnya, although they are on the periphery of Chechnya, and problems in these republics are not inherrently related to Chechnya. Not a single one of the sources used in this list mention anything to do with a "guerilla phase" of any Chechen war, and I can't see any which connect it directly with the long-finished war in Chechnya. Looking past the article, the problem is then that we aren't a newswire where we document every minor incident in this region.Russavia ^Dialogue 17:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Retitling is an editing issue. Content is notable. Probably needs to be worked into prose, but should be included in the encyclopedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, WP:OR is not an editorial issue, it is a policy issue. What the article creator has done is to lump together unrelated events from various Russian republics and has called this the OR/SYN "Guerrilla phase of the Second Chechen War (2009)". The events themselves are not even necessarily notable, as we aren't a news wire. --Russavia ^Dialogue 18:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This story from Moscow refers to rebels [23]. Should it be retitled to something along the lines of Rebels in Dagestan and Insughetia (sp?) ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dagestan and Ingushetia, and Kabardino-Balkaria, and dare I say, Karachay-Cherkessia, are not linked to the Chechen War in such a way that is being suggested in this article. It is incorrect synthesis to link them all together in any such way. --Russavia ^Dialogue 10:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Perhaps rename, but a cursory glance at the sources does indicate that violence in certain areas is linked and is not purely OR (though there may be some - what this article really needs is a good overhaul). As for notability, individual facts within an article don't have to be notable, it's the article overall. Joshdboz (talk) 18:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This was nominated for deletion four weeks ago. What has changed? Colchicum (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Guerrilla phase of the Second Chechen War (2009) is a needed entry and has every thing to do with the Chechen war. If you do not think these attacks are an act of guerrilla warfare or linked to Chechnya you are sadly mistaken. Why this debate is coming up again i dont know, but we need to work together and make it better not try to delete it. Quit with the BS, lies, and misrepresentations of this article. Lets be better than that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmp7 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the article creator, can you please provide sources which refer to these individual events which when look at together as the "Guerilla phase of the Second Chechen War". Could you also provide reliable sources which state that events in Ingushetia are directly linked to a war in Chechnya which for all intents and purposes is over. Even Stratfor doesn't make this link, and when ex-CIA kooks don't make that distinction, I feel one would be very hard pressed to find any such distinction linking clan-based in-fighting amongst the Ingush people, and problems in the relationship with Moscow, to a war in Chechnya. --Russavia ^Dialogue 10:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per arguments at the previous AfD. The article has been visibly improved since the previous AfD, but the argument by nominator remains exactly the same. Its disruptive to nominate the same article for deletion every couple of weeks.Biophys (talk) 01:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Russavia. "Not a single one of the sources used in this list mention anything to do with a "guerilla phase" of any Chechen war." Offliner (talk) 02:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, problems raised are content/naming issues that can be dealt with on the article talk page, but topic is notable. Perhaps it could be renamed to Chechen insurgency, for example. Martintg (talk) 02:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why, when it has nothing to do with Chechen insurgency. Ingushetia for example have their own problems, as does Dagestan, as do other Russian Caucasus republics, and none of them have anything to do with a long-finished war in Chechnya. --Russavia ^Dialogue 10:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 07:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 10:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unencyclopedic. Hopelessly WP:OR. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 14:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep wait a few more days and then try again. Ostap 17:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Per my reasons in the first proposed deletion. Made up conflicts hugely compromise the integrity of wikipedia. Even naming issues aside, all this article contains is a list of events that aren't even directly linked with each other. Since when was it encyclopedic to make a general violence in -insert area here- article, much less misportray it as an actual war? LokiiT (talk) 18:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What is it, a news digest? What's more, how come that in an article supposedly about the Chechen War the words "Chechen" or "Chechnya" do not appear even once? No explanation of how the listed events are related to the Chechen War is given, no explanation of what and why joins all these events together, and not a single source provided in this article is academic in nature—it's all just random news reports. If any items in this list can be salvaged by incorporating them elsewhere, please do so by all means, but the article itself is unsalvageable no matter how you title it.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:51, March 25, 2009 (UTC)
Delete per WP:OR. Also, when have conflicts been listed? Come back when you have an actual article with RELIBLE sources and I may change my mind. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see no evidence that the sourced and documented events in this article are part of a recognized, verifiable whole, either under this title or any other. The overwhelming bulk of this material is related to Chechnya only through loose geographic association, and to the "guerrilla phase" of any recognized war simply not at all. This is a textbook case of original research through novel synthesis. Serpent's Choice (talk) 19:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all original research, some kind of weird fork.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unencyclopedic, merely some collection of links to news articles.DonaldDuck (talk) 04:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Through out the history of the Guerrilla Phase of the Second Chechen war the contributors of Wikipedia have added attacks from Dagestan, Ingushetia, Karabnio-Balkaria, and North Ossetia. None of these places are Chechnya. Yet we still list them under the Second Chechen war, it only makes sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmp7 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I voted keep above. One of the reasons: there is a continuous "counter-terrorism" operation (one can call a "counter-insurgency" operation) by regular Russian army in Checnya - according to official statements by Russian government. Ramzan Kadyrov declared this phase to be ended a couple of days ago please see this ref. I made this edit. I hope it helps.Biophys (talk) 14:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good. After your edit, we actually have one sentence that has something to do with Chechnya. Now we can remove the rest. Offliner (talk) 16:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Now that one sentence that actually has to do with the Second Chechen War should be moved to the Second Chechen War article, and this article about non-existent guerrilla warfare in Chechnya can be deleted. LokiiT (talk) 17:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but this your edit was a classic WP:POINT. This does not help to justify your case.Biophys (talk) 00:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we fixed the problems...Biophys (talk) 05:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Info is at Second_Chechen_War#Status. This isn't even needed as a redirect, which in effect is a WP:COATRACK WP:POVFORK. --Russavia ^Dialogue 05:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We should preserve this page and improve it. I don't see anybody deleting the other guerilla pages. To delete this one is nonsensical.71.192.134.75 (talk) 16:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's because they're properly sourced and based on facts. If I created an article for the renewed violence in Ireland, and then named it Guerrilla warfare in the U.K. it would get deleted without a second thought. This is no different. LokiiT (talk) 18:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This more similar to current NATO operations in Afganistan. This is definitely an insurgency - per definition by Russian governement - as cited in this article.Biophys (talk) 02:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is just a POV fork now with a misleading name. The content that is in the article now should be merged into the main article. There is still no actual combat (guerrilla or otherwise) occurring in Chechnya, in fact Chechnya is more stable than its neighbors these days. Also there is no "second phase" to the war, this counter-insurgency operation has been going on for the past 10 years per your own article and the only reason its making news now is because it's about to end. LokiiT (talk) 06:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or expand, I do not see any attacks listed --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - that is because the nominator removed them; see below. TerriersFan (talk) 20:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is one of a series of no less than ten pages, one for each year since 2000. I see no benefit in deleting just one of these. Better, that there should be a discussion about whether there should be separate articles or whether they should all be merged into Guerrilla phase of the Second Chechen War; retitled if required. I also note that the moniator has removed a significant amount of sourced content, here. TerriersFan (talk)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin closure.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of possible exceptions to the democratic peace theory

This is an article without a neutral point of view, and by its very nature, a hotbed of original research. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 16:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this article is very useful. I and my students refer to it at least once a semester. Kingturtle (talk) 17:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it is, and you could always keep a copy of it in your userspace, or download the book version. But this AfD isn't about how useful it is, it's about whether or not it meets the policies on neutrality and original research. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 17:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then work on converting any original research to non-original research. The idea behind the article is useful. Kingturtle (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can too, of course! However, my point is that the very premise of the article is one of original research. "List of possible exceptions" - read the columns in that table, they're full of opinions and unsubstantiated claims. They base their comments on different sources, standards and data. Who is to say what's a possible exception? Who's to qualify the mitigation (far-right column)? It's not a constructive basis for a neutral, verifiable article, I'm afraid. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 17:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then change the name of the article. The premise of the article is valid, useful, and has plenty of non-original research that can be used. Unfortunately, with my schedule right now, I don't have the time to do the work :/ although I'd love to. Kingturtle (talk) 11:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many researchers have discussed this topic. As long as you clearly state who claims a particular case is an exception or not and on what grounds, it follows every policy. E.g. "THE CASE OF THE U.K. DECLARATION OF WAR ON FINLAND: DEC. 6, 1941" Wayman, "This only excludes the war between ..." Rummel, Kargil War, "According to Page Fortna[56] and Muppidi[57], this is the most straightforward exception to democratic peace." Jacob Lundberg (talk) 11:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this counts as a synthesis. ~~Delete~~.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, synthesis, that's the word I was looking for - thanks! ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 18:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Question TBH I'm not sure that I follow the argument for deletion here. Lots of pages are "hotbeds for original research". That doesn't mean they should be deleted, as long as they are potentially verifiable and can be improved. Similarly, its also not clear to me that everything in here is necessarily unpublished synthesis. It seems like, again, many of these points can in principle be verified. Finally, you say that it is 'without an NPOV'. I'm not sure what you mean by that. The only argument I can think of for deletion is that it is a crosscategorization of democracies and wars, but because it directly relates to an existing article (democratic peace theory)) I don't really think it is inherently un-encyclopedic. Would someone like to amplify on these arguments? Locke9k (talk) 22:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SYN is about how far it's reasonable to take the sources. You can't take sources much further than they go themselves. In this case, several disparate sources are being pulled together to advance an argument that the sources themselves don't make, so a group of individually sourced or sourceable statements, when put together, can constitute original research.

AfD is the process of asking whether Wikipedia should have an article with this title. That's the only proper question for AfD; if the answer is "yes" then we keep and improve, and if it's "no" we delete the article. In this case, I don't believe Wikipedia can or should have a "List of possible exceptions to the democratic peace theory", because I don't believe it would be possible to create such an article without a synthesis of the kind we're talking about. I feel that sourced material properly belongs in Democratic peace theory or elsewhere.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is an extensive literature on this topic. This article is definately verifiable. E.g. Huth, Paul K. & Allee, Todd L. (2002), The Democratic Peace and Territorial Conflict in the Twentieth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) and Wayman, Frank W. (2002), "Incidence of militarized disputes between liberal states, 1816–1992", paper, International Studies Association, New Orleans discuss cases. Jacob Lundberg (talk) 11:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – yeah, definitely synthesis from looking at the content and a couple of sources. One could also infer that from the name of the article: "List of possible exceptions to the democratic peace theory". MuZemike 22:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The theory and its possible exceptions are widely discussed. See e.g. when Tony Blair's visited The Daily Show and talked about whether the Falklands War was an exception. If it fails to meet policies it should be edited, not deleted. Jacob Lundberg (talk) 11:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's any doubt that the Democratic peace theory is widely discussed. The question before us is whether a list of possible exceptions merits a separate article.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 13:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you would you be comfortable with renaming the article "List of wars between democracies"? It seems like that would be a verifiable list that would contain essentially the same content.Locke9k (talk) 14:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have no objection at all to a properly-sourced List of wars between democracies and I'd be willing to help produce such an article.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd advise using the current article as a guide, rather than just renaming it and making token edits, for what it's worth. I still think the current article should be deleted. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 14:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me like much of the present list is will sourced and could be added to such an article. If thats the case, a namechange and editorial work seems preferable over a delete. Some of the entries may have to be cut out, but thats not sufficient reason for a delete.Locke9k (talk) 14:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Woah, TreasuryTag. Why are you assuming only token edits? It seems to me like there is a lot of good info in this article. Just because it is going to take major edits to get this into good shape isn't a good reason to delete it. I don't know what you mean by "guide". If we agree that there is good material in this article that should go into that one then we should preserve the edit history commensurate with the GDFL. Then we can delete anything that isn't verifiable and possibly make a great article. Locke9k (talk) 14:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My concerns are not that there is unverifiable information, it's that there is synthesis. It's entirely original research, and renaming it doesn't make any difference. Some of it's based on Polity data, some on Freedom House... it needs complete rewriting, just using the original text as an inspiration for what needs fresh research, so GFDL shouldn't enter into it. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 17:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above discussion, but rename "List of wars between democracies" and cleanup appropriately to fit new name. Locke9k (talk) 14:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thought: I'll add one more thought, although it doesn't necessarily belong in an AFD. Given how large the boxes in this list are, it might be more appropriate as a normal article rather than a list. That way there could be appropriate discussion of the possible arguments for an against it being categorized as a war between democracies. I think that also might be helpful in alleviating some of the issues raised here. Locke9k (talk) 14:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The discussion above indicates that there are good alternatives to deletion. Per WP:BEFORE, AFD is only for hopeless cases. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've stricken my earlier !vote because I've changed my position based on good arguments from both TreasuryTag and Locke9k. I now think this should be Userfied, to me or to Locke9k or both, so we can re-use some of the sources to create a fresh article called List of wars between democracies.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Such action is better done with a move which will preserve the edit history per the WP:GFDL. Any editor may do this and so I will be bold as the proposed title seems sensible. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to object, and still contend that the article should be deleted. It needs to be completely rewritten, so GFDL shouldn't come into it. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 17:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may still be completely rewritten. That is a matter of normal editing, not deletion. Despite appearances, we do not work in the manner of the infinite monkeys - writing endless articles at random and then sifting out the ones which have achieved perfection. Instead, our editing policy is to work by steady increments, slowly working towards a good result but preserving the contributions of those who helped along the way. This is both courteous and scholarly, providing a comprehensive history of the article's development. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Treasury Tag, is there a particular reason why you feel the article history should be deleted?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<Sorry, I thought I'd made that clear. I think that the article is so completely unacceptable, that just editing it into being good is insufficient. It would need to be completely rewritten - someone would have to sit down, say... "Mexican-American War, I'll research the background to that and find sources," not say, "How can I fiddle around with this already-written paragraph to modify out the synthesis?" Since, therefore, the contributions of all these people would be irrelevant, and the page is completely different to how it was before, I think it should be deleted and re-done from scratch, without a template, since the template is so poor. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 17:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is no longer the article that you nominated and work has already commenced. Please save us further discussion and withdraw. You will be free to return at a later date to see what has become of the article. Or you might even contribute to achieve your preferred form. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate what you're trying to do, and withdraw accordingly (I'm not 100% familiar with the template/withdrawal mechanism, could someone else do that, please?). However, I will return and take a look, and intend to nominate again if it's not improved significantly, as I stand by my statement(s) that it is terminally synthetic. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 17:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I can. Thanks to all involved for working towards what I think is an excellent consensus.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 17:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Linacongo

This airline was never heard of. There is a magazine article given as reference, but I dobn't have access. IATA and IACO codes do not exist. The internet "doesn't know this airline". There is no source to any flights they operated. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 16:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete, create Lina Congo and recreate as a re-direct~~. This does seem to be or have been an airline based in Brazzaville [24][25]--Oakshade (talk) 23:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC) Never mind. Did just that. Now Keep. --Oakshade (talk) 03:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep despite nominator comment ICAO Code and Callsign are still current (ICAO 8585 Edition 147) and existance is referenced in Flight magazine and google search show various independent references to the airline. MilborneOne (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article now has a reference to a paper encyclopedia, and there are hundreds more books that could be used as sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Discussion to merge should take place at the article's talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional turtles

Unencyclopedic listcruft; WP:IINFO and WP:NOTDIR. KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this listcruft. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Other stuff exists. This is the sort of information that you would not expect to find in a paper encyclopedia. However, the fact that so many of these "List of fictional ____" articles exist is proof that at least one person found them potentially useful, and are not cruft. These lists are not in any way an indiscriminate collection of information; its a list of fictional turtles. The topic of the article is precisely defined. I fail to see how WP:NOTDIR applies; this isn't a directory or anything close to what that policy describes as a directory. These lists are easily verifiable, and each entry should be of a notable subject making the list notable. Several of these lists have come to AfD before, with the result being keep or no consensus (I could not find any that resulted in delete, but that doesn't mean there haven't been any) AfD/List of fictional dogs, AfD/List of fictional cats, AfD/List of fictional apes, and AfD/List of fictional pandas. -Atmoz (talk) 16:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Atmoz and WP:NOTPAPER. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 17:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Let's look at the reasons given for deletion. (1) WP:LISTCRUFT. This is an essay that refers to indiscriminate or trivial lists. This list is neither. It is not indiscriminate, because there are clearly defined criteria for inclusion-- this is a list of fictional turtles that have articles in Wikipedia, that should have articles in Wikipedia, or that are mentioned in a parent article. Simple. (2) WP:IINFO - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. As I already mentioned, this is not an indiscriminate list, there are clearly defined criteria for inclusion. (3) WP:NOTDIR. This simply doesn't apply. I would like to ask the nominator which of the six items found at WP:NOTDIR does this list fall under? — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 17:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Linguist and Atmoz; this is not some random collection of facts. Drmies (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is the type of information you'd see in a directory/database, like a phone book which is the example used in WP:NOT. This list also violates WP:N as the subject of the list (the grouping of turtles from all aspects of fiction) has not been discussed nontrivially in any reliable, third-party sources. It's hard enough proving that fictional turtles are notable, but the compilation of a list of fictional turtles as the subject of its own article is a step beyond that even. Also, per WP:SALAT this list is overly-broad in its criteria for inclusion (read: indiscriminate). It reads "Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value" and concludes "be prepared to explain why you feel this list contributes to the state of human knowledge" This list clearly does not contribute to the state of human knowledge. The compilation of these has no end result other than the compilation itself. Nothing can be used for comparison purposes nor does each item within the list have any bearing on the other items within it. Them From Space 20:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmmm - In my opinion, and with total respect, you've missed the point. This is not an attempt at an encyclopedia article on the topic of "Fictional turtles". It is a navigational aid listing the current Wikipedia articles (or parts of articles) on different fictional turtles, much like a "fictional turtles" category would do, but with features a category can't have. As far as being to broad or indiscriminate, I don't see how you can say that, since it's limited to fictional turtles that are already notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a stand-alone article or as part of an article. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 23:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Per WP:STAND, stand-alone lists are ordinary encyclopedia articles and they should be treated to the same applications of policy and guidelines that regular articles are given. This includes notability of the subject matter (the compilation of a list of fictional turtles) and other things which Wikipedia is not. If this isn't an attempt at an encyclopedia article than it shouldn't be in the mainspace, but it should be a category as categories don't have to adhere as strictly to the policies and guidelines. Them From Space 00:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm sorry, but this is simply wrong. WP:STAND says that lists, as articles, are subject to the content policies (e.g., verifiability, no original research, and neutral point of view), but the only mention of notability relates to the notability of people within a list. The topic of an article should be notable, but the topic of this list is "fictional turtles", not "the grouping of turtles from all aspects of fiction". (For examples of articles where an actual list is the topic rather than just the items listed, see Billboard Hot 100, AFI's 100 Years... 100 Movies and Nixon's Enemies List. Such articles do not usually begin with "List of".) The topic is shown notable by many references significantly covering turtles in literature and fiction, and the many notable examples of such. Furthermore, categories used in the mainspace not only have to adhere to the content policies just as much as lists do (e.g., a Category:Incompetent presidents of the United States would be deleted as violating WP:NPOV just as harshly as an equivalent list)—categories are in fact subject to a stricter policy than articles or lists: overcategorization. DHowell (talk) 03:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - The subject of an article is its title. A stand alone list article takes the list itself as its subject, not the subject of the parent article. AFI lists are indeed good examples of lists which are notable, as opposed to around 95% of the lists we have on Wikipedia which simply are not. If one has to only go to Wikipedia for something (like a particular list), than it shouldn't be here as we don't publish syntheses of information, nor do we report on information which hasn't already been covered. Them From Space 04:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mainly per Themfromspace's excellent summery. It is unreferenced and fails to signify why a list of turtles contributes to human knowledge. Other than for trivial purposes, it doesn't contribute. The list also doesn't go into details of what inclusion for the turtles. Obviously a kid's imaginary friend turtle wouldn't qualify (although fictional) but if lets say a local pizza place decides to use a turtle for advertising, would it qualify for this list? As such, it is indiscriminate. Tavix (talk) 20:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Unsourced, trivial and indiscriminate list. I did Google and Google Scholar searches for "turtles in fiction" and "fictional turtles" and got just pretty much nothing that wasn't ultimately sourced from a Wikipedia article. Reyk _YO! 21:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the obviously duplicated Cultural_depictions_of_turtles_and_tortoises. Come on guys, seriously now, lets stop wasting everybody's time here. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 03:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And while I'm here, I might as well used this wasted AfD moment to plug my new pet project, Wikipedia:Mergers for discussion, which would have made this entirely unnecessary. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 04:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:IINFO. Pastor Theo (talk) 10:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per LinguistAtLarge. Reasons for deletion are either not policy (oh how I hate arguments based on essays...) or clearly do not apply. This is an encyclopedic entry, not just a directory of facts or random collection of information. So there is no real policy based reason to delete this article because what "contribute[s] to the state of human knowledge" is a highly subjective criterion that everyone will judge differently. So Why 12:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Comment. It isn't an indescriminate list, and the subjects listed are notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, so I see no reason to delete it. Also, I want to point out that the article has been modified significantly since it was nominated for deletion. It has now changed from a list with little prose text, to be much more like Cultural depictions of turtles and tortoises as NickPinguin says. I personally don't think it should be merged, but think the prose text should be scaled back to maintain the difference between this article and Cultural depictions of turtles and tortoises, but regardless, that isn't a discussion for AfD. Calathan (talk) 14:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; it seems that large chunks of Cultural depictions of turtles and tortoises have been copied wholesale, with a few short lists at the bottom. A category would address this much better and could be linked to in the "See also" section of "Cultural depictions". -Sketchmoose (talk) 14:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: And there already is a Category:Fictional turtles. Clearly we have missed the tagging of all fictitious chelonians, but this grave negligence does not necessitate an article which duplicates two others. -Sketchmoose (talk) 14:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment True, this article has now been turned into a cruftified version of Cultural depictions of turtles and tortoises. Duplicate articles here don't belong. I think the debate now is whether the list style should be used for this format, in which my answer is "clearly, no". Prose should always be preferred except in cases where the list itself produces something in which the prose cannot, like a direct comparison. As I said above, the material in this list doesn't recieve any benefits from direct comparison through a list format. The giant turtle in Aladdin has nothing to do with Squirtle from Pokemon. Thus, there is no encyclopedic value to the list and it serves as merely a directory. Them From Space 14:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The list forms a good index for the topic Cultural depictions of turtles and tortoises and is suitable for this per WP:CLS. The two articles might best be developed/merged together but this is a matter of normal editing, not deletion. The title of this article is a useful search term and so should not be deleted. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list is or should be limited to turtles who play a major role in notable fiction. If it does that, it is not indiscriminate. "Indiscriminate" is a list of every fictional turtle ever written about or alluded to in any work however non-notable--this list by contrast is highly discriminating by being limited to notable fiction. "Listcruft" is a synonym for IDONTTHINKITSIMPORTANT, for it can be applied to any list article. I hardly think this list is"too general or too broad in scope" -- to me, it seems exactly focused and rather narrow. Categories and lists are complementary, and there is no reason not to have both. Lists here have the particular advantage of providing some information about the fiction in which they appear, those facilitating browsing. No valid reason for deletion based on anything in Wikipedia policy. DGG (talk) 03:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Colonel Warden's comments seem to clarify it well enough. Or to put it another way: AfD is not cleanup. - jc37 09:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you ever think that this was nominated because it should be deleted? Where does it say that the nominator wanted it cleaned-up? No where. Please, stop making false assumptions. Maybe if this is kept, it should be cleaned up. Tavix (talk) 22:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually you are making the "false assumption" that I was referring specifically to the what the nominator "wanted". Though I do find it interesting that their rationale for deletion is an WP:IDONTLIKEIT essay (WP:LISTCRUFT). - jc37 03:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator did not use LISTCRUFT as his rationale, instead he used WP:IINFO and WP:NOTDIR, which is a section of the NOT policy. People usually don't use essays as reasons for deletion, but point to them to so they don't have to draw out in the nomination of everything possible. Instead, pointing to an essay gives people a heads-up that they think the article in question meets/fails the point that the essay is driving across. Also, please show me where the nominator said he wanted clean-up. That is where I am saying you have false accusations. Tavix (talk) 05:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Throughout history, turtles have played a key role in some societies. Although if any of the religions on certain islands still believe the turtle is sacred, then you couldn't include them as "fictional". Only religions no one believes in anymore, can be referred to by that. Dream Focus 19:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Cultural depictions of turtles and tortoises - there is a lot of duplicated/redundant information. As a bonus, a fictional turtle does qualify as a cultural depiction so you neatly sidestep the thorny theological question of gods becoming fictional iff nobody worships them any more. pablo_hablo. 22:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This list serves the three purposes of lists in Wikipedia: navigation, information, and development. "Indiscriminate" is not an indiscriminate criterion for deletion—just because a few editors feel it is "indiscriminate" does not mean it violates policy. It is not a "directory" in the Wikipedia sense; with or without the prose, it is nothing like a phone book: it is an annotated index to Wikipedia articles grouped under a useful and notable category. As such it does contribute to the state of human knowledge, by providing an organized way to access that knowledge. It does not violate the three content policies; everything in here is verifiable, neutral, and not original research. However, the redundant prose to Cultural depictions of turtles and tortoises should be trimmed and briefly summarized; the focus of this should be the items listed. Merging is a reasonable possibility but it is not necessary to decide this at AfD. DHowell (talk) 03:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Cultural depictions of turtles and tortoises. Much of the information is duplicated. I see little reason to have two articles on this; the topic is pretty much the same. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 00:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. If someone wants to merge its content with cultural depictions of turtles and tortoises, that's fine; otherwise I see no reason to delete it, notwithstanding "cruft! indiscriminate!" arguments.--Father Goose (talk) 08:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Madoff

WP:NOTE Person is only notable because they were a relative of someone notable. News coverage consists only of brief references in articles about Bernard Madoff. A bit of a hit job, too. John Nagle (talk) 15:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's move it where it belongs: as background inspiration and influence for his son, Bernie Madoff. It is not a hit job, simpy too many chiefs deleting it where is was originally placed, so a new page was started to avoid conflict...Furtive admirer (talk) 16:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete of merge Article is about the father of a notable person, but has no evidence of notability himself. His only claim to notability (from the current article) is that he had a minor scuffle with the SEC. Notability isn't inherited. If any of the verifiable content is useful, it can be merged into the Bernie Madoff article and redirected. -Atmoz (talk) 16:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (created article) The CNN/Money story is entirely about the subjects, and there is more than enough other coverage to make the father notable. The article could perhaps be about both parents? And some of the content should of course be included in the son's article as appropriate, but putting it all there would be too much. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability is not inherited, even in reverse. Frank | talk 21:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, but where there is substantial coverage it doesn't need to be inherited. See for example Madelyn Dunham, Maya Soetoro-Ng, and Lolo Soetoro. That they have become notable in large part because of their relation to a more notable figure, does not mean they are not themselves notable once they've been covered substantially in reliable sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point, but I don't think it applies. Keep in mind that Bernie didn't even have an article before his arrest. Barack Obama certainly did. Even his relatives are of questionable notability. That Bernie had parents is hardly notable. Frank | talk 01:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May not be notable to you. But CNN/Money did a whole article on them, and they've received other coverage so I think notability is sufficient and consistent with guidelines. If people don't want to read about them, they don't have to. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the article you refer to? It hardly qualifies as "a whole article on them" - rather a bunch of speculation and innuendo directly related to Bernie. If there's another that qualifies as being about them, it should be added as a reference to our article. I'm just not seeing independent notability in this case; if they weren't notable before Bernie was (and he probably wasn't until December 2008), it's going to be hard for them to become notable now, ~30 years after they died. Frank | talk 11:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of people become notable after they die as their significance becomes clear. That article is about the parents and is substantial coverage. That it "relates" to Bernie indirectly irrelevant. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Procedural Keep and relist on AfD The article cited above is primarily about the mother, not the father. Gigs (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retitled per your concern to include both parents. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the subject of an article midway through an AfD is... unusual to say the least. Because of this change, I suggest that this AfD be abandoned and relisted. Gigs (talk) 23:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is a new article and naming and such sometimes takes time to be worked out. I was leaning toward a combined article anyway, see my earlier comment, and I think it works better this way. There is enough coverage of the parents to make them notable and worth including for those who want to know the family background. There is too much to information to include all in Madoff's article and there is likely to be more to come as coverage of the circumstances and background continue to be investigated. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Frank. I had in mind the exact same rationale, with the exact same wording, when I opened this AfD! Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article has been changed to "Ralph and Sylvia Madoff," but I don't see how these people warrant an article at this time. That may change as more information comes to light, and article can be re-established. JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, merge any possibly useful content into biography section of Bernard Madoff. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 19:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. X clamation point 01:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andazification

Band article which does not provide evidence of their notability. Fails WP:BAND. Astronaut (talk) 15:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 17:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I find no criteria in WP:Music that this band meets. 5000+ ghits, but I find no individual independent reliable coverage of this band. Delete unless evidence of notability is established. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 00:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 02:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable band. Fails WP:MUSIC. Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, article does not even try o establish notability. Deletion Mutation 15:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC) N.B. !vote of sockpuppet of blocked user struck through. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 02:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Racial disappearance

This article is a potentially notable topic, but it's not written from a neutral point of view and the sourcing is poor. -Close (to the Edit) (talk) 14:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I know this is not the usual way handling AFDs but I felt it was needed here. The article was radically changed during the AFD, thus almost all !votes here were for an article which does not exist anymore, at least not in this way. I thus decided to relist the AFD and put all !votes that commented on the previous version of the article in the box below. Possibly further discussion can reach consensus whether the now-existing stub should be deleted or kept. Regards So Why 15:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments prior to change to stub.

Keep - an important encyclopedic subject that people need to be aware of. Sources are fine. And if you think these sources are not good enough, I can provide many more.--Ratbones (talk) 15:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please provide more? The two currently on the article appear to be questionable sources, and I'm not sure if WP:FRINGE should apply or not. --Explodicle (T/C) 17:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. POV is not grounds for deletion, but is grounds for improvement. I think this is an important subject but the article as written has a lot of room for improvement, particularly in the way of WP:RS. If the author can come up with more RS I may change my position to firm keep. KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article should be made NPOV--H8erade (talk) 17:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article could stand some improvement, and perhaps there is a more common term that this can be moved to -- but it's a very real concern for ethnic groups whose numbers are declining, and a topic of debate in Judaism (worldwide [26]. Population decline is an article here, but it refers to the world's nations. The term "racial disappearance" doesn't get many hits, but that only means that this can be moved to a more likely title. Mandsford (talk) 17:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - AfD is not cleanup. --Explodicle (T/C) 17:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Weak Keep~~ --very weak keep for this start at much disputed topic. At the very least should refer fully to the other WP articles discussing this. DGG (talk) 18:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Upon rereading the article, I've changed my mind. The unsuitable nature of the article in shown most clearly by its repeatedly using the term "miscegenation" It's not just a question of replacing the term-- the degree of cleanup needed is impractical. Much better to start over. Ethic groups change by two mechanisms: replacement and assimilation, as this is discussed in the modern anthropological literature. Unfortunately, it is also discussed in the older anthropological and racist literature in a misleading way.DGG (talk) 00:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no valid rationale given for deletion. The complaints require cleanup, not deletion. Topic seems notable, requires NPOV editing and sourcing, but deletion is not called for in this case, and should have been tagged for cleanup, not brought to AFD. The Seeker 4 Talk 19:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was going to vote keep but decided to do a quick search on Google scholar, which makes it abundantly clear that this term simply doesn't exist in the scholarly literature and as such is a an WP:OR neologism. The content could be ported over to another title, but the content is idiosyncratic and not substantiated by reference to the standard literature. Wikipedia reflects, not creates, the state of knowledge. Eusebeus (talk) 20:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Eusebeus is completely correct, this is OR. And the only two references given are not exactly RS either. --Crusio (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete how do you salvage an article with sentences like "Political parties such as the British National Party have stopping racial disappearance as one of their objectives, although since social democracy is a euphemism for totalitarianism, such parties have little chance of gaining significant power, and indeed often face ostracization from the mainstream media and other political parties in their own countries."? I'm all for giving an article a chance but this ought to be speedied, such racist garbage could bring Wikipedia into disrepute. WP:IAR should apply, if nothing else. 140.247.249.78 (talk) 22:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The nominator's rationale sums the situation pretty well. It may be possible to write an encyclopedic article on the subject of the dimunition and disappearance of races due to immigration and miscegenation, but this article is a FRINGE ESSAY. Ordinarily I would argue for keeping the article and re-writing it, but when you remove the non-encylopedic content from this article (as I have done), you are left with nothing but a NEOLOGISM. To make a truly clean start you'd have to rename the article, come up with a different definition of its topic, and re-write and source it from the ground up. There's no foundation to build on; better to delete the article and start from scratch. Baileypalblue (talk) 23:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully, someone will write a good article, because it seems like a worthwhile topic that hasn't been covered. Even if the page is deleted (and it's hard to disagree with the problems with this article), I hope that someone will take up the cause. Mandsford (talk) 01:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Unfortunately I don't feel qualified to write such an article, it looks like it could be an interesting project. Baileypalblue (talk) 01:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The topic is definitely notable but the article would essentially need a complete re-write to get past the POV issues etc. Best to delete it as is and hopefully a more experienced editor will create it anew in future.Broadweighbabe (talk) 03:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete unless someone is willing to rewrite the article in a neutral and expanded form. This is certainly a notable subject, although not necessarily a notable term -- BloodGrapefruit2 (talk) 04:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 15:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The racist gibberish that was this article has been expunged to leave a stub which states: Racial disappearance is the term used for when an ethnic group or race peacefully and bloodlessly disappears through a combination of immigration by other groups to their homeland, and miscegenation by that group as well as a declining birth rate amongst those people. I reiterate though that google scholar has never heard of such a term. This should not have been relisted; it should be deleted as a pseudo-academic neologism. Eusebeus (talk) 15:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with Eusebeus and stick to my previous delete !vote. It's a neologism and even if I do some "OR", I don't see any value in a concept of "racial disappearance": which race has ever disappeared? Some ethnic groups have been absorbed by others, of course, but as far as I see "ethnic disappearance" is as deserving of an article as "racial disappearance", which is not at all. This should not have been relisted but simply deleted. --Crusio (talk) 16:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miscegenation. I was previously on the "weak keep" side, but at this point there isn't enough material or sourcing to justify a standalone article. --Explodicle (T/C) 16:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not a neologism, and I've added examples of the word being used in serious sociological texts to the article to show that it's a term that is used in sociological literature, and could be expanded to full-article form.—AfD doesn't determine whether to keep the existing article content; the purpose of AfD is to decide if Wikipedia should have an article with this title.—I also want to applaud SoWhy for his creative but appropriate approach to this AfD.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThanks for those references. Perhaps you'll want to revisit your vote once you've had a moment to actually look at them... --Crusio (talk) 17:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. I strongly disagree that the "sources" demonstrate the existence of this term as a scholarly idea that exists in the intellectual currency of sociological thought. S Marshal seem to have searched through google books and cherry-picked the incidental use of the word racial adjectivally linked to disappearance; this constitutes the existence of a sociological term? That's ridiculous and having this kind of article brings wikipedia into disrepute as a hotbed of OR and neologisms. Eusebeus (talk) 17:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm perplexed.—Are these not sociological texts? Do they not employ the phrase "racial disappearance" to mean what the stub says it means? And if they are sociological texts that use the phrase to mean what the stub says they mean, then isn't the matter verified from reliable sources?

I can't agree that the question of which race has ever disappeared? invalidates the concept. We haven't observed any universes exploding, but that doesn't mean the Big Bang is an invalid concept and should be deleted from Wikipedia.

I do think you could make a credible argument that "racial disappearance" isn't a notable term that merits a separate article, but I also think the idea that it doesn't exist at all, or is somehow an "invalid concept", fails in the face of sources that mention it. Wikipedia doesn't evaluate truth, it evaluates sources.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The comparison with the Big Bang is invalid: there's plenty of evidence that a Big Bang actually happened. Apart from that, I agree with you that it does not actually matter whether the phenomenon exists or not (so let's abandon that discussion), only whether the concept has notability. I agree with Eusebeus that your sources don't establish "racial disappearance" as a concept that is or has been being used in sociology. Let's look at your sources in more detail: we have three books, each of which has the words "racial disappearance" appear together exactly once. One of the books does so while discussing a fictional account. The next sasy (to cite the whole single phrase in the whole book using this expression): "The issue of racial disappearance has been a staple of alarmist rhetoric across the twentieth century." That leaves only the third book that uses the term in anything like the sense that would be intended in this article. One phrase in one single book does not really amount to notability to me (not even three phrases in three books, if someone would insist on counting all three). --Crusio (talk) 18:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I could find more such sources if that would help; I stopped after three feeling that a higher number wouldn't add force to the argument.

Stipulating for the moment that, in using it to discuss a fictional account, the passage in America's Asia: Racial Form and American Literature is acknowledging there is no such concept in currency—which I don't agree with, by the way, but I'm prepared to stipulate it for the moment—we're left with the passage in Blackness and Sexualities and the passage in The Social Psychology of Ethnic Identity. Blackness and Sexualities does say it's "a staple of alarmist rhetoric", but my point is that in doing so, it's acknowledging that the concept exists in the form described in the stub.

By analogy, Wikipedia appropriately has an article about Bigfoot. A widely-disparaged concept is still a concept, and the disparagement adds to its notability.

I think we agree that the third source uses the term exactly as described.

I'd agree that the idea that the juxtaposition of "racial" and "disappearance" was partly coincidental, but isn't that how memetics works?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Bigfoot myth" = 3700 returns on google scholar. This = 11. So we have an article on Bigfoot because it exists. 11 responses from google scholar on a supposedly bonafide term in sociological thought? C'mon, that's obviously crossing the line with WP:V. What is your interest in promoting stuff that simply reinforces Wikipedia's bad reputation as a reliable source of information while at the same time you obviously care enough about to participate here? I am mystified. Eusebeus (talk) 18:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your point regarding insufficient sources, but I don't think S Marshall's motives are relevant to this discussion. --Explodicle (T/C) 19:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was merely rhetorical. Eusebeus (talk) 20:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring the logical fallacy there, I'm left with what appears to be an argument based on WP:GHITS. To which the answer is, WP:V is a binary thing. Either there's a published, reliable source or there isn't.

If this were a hugely long article then its treatment would be out of proportion to its significance, per WP:UNDUE, because we have a low number of sources and their reliability is in question (no matter how unjustly so). But because this is a short stub that doesn't overemphasize the importance of the concept, I don't see valid grounds to delete.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I do agree that we shouldn't misrepresent this as a widely-accepted concept. I've tweaked the article accordingly—does the new version come closer to addressing your concerns?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a non notable term and an article that seems beyond a rewrite. If the subject is notable, start from scatch. --Stormbay (talk) 23:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't delete articles on notable subjects just because we think they are of poor quality. --Explodicle (T/C) 23:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable topic, rather poor article. Needs expansion, and rewriting for POV. The article's POV is obvious from using "miscegenation" instead of "intermarriage" or some other less loaded term. Not necessarily pseudo-socialscience--treating it as such is Political Correctness run amok. I think a long article would be appropriate for its significance. Probably hundreds of findable references--the exacttitle for the article can be discussed subsequently. DGG (talk) 04:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. I have replaced the reference to "miscegenation" with one to "interracial marriage". --H8erade (talk) 06:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems a valid concept; see here. TerriersFan (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as it seems to be barely notable concept in sociology. The name can use some reworking, but I can't offer any suggestions as I'm not a sociologist. A stub should suffice for now to prevent it from getting out of hand with original research and synthesis. We have to watch out so that we don't accidently create a "truth" which doesn't already exist. Them From Space 00:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 17:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

T.Damodaran

Delete although this guy has an entry in imdb, there appears to be no significant coverage in reliable third party sources at Google, thus failing WP:BIO; and of course, he's sufficiently nn that we don't even know when or where he was born or even if he's still alive - not much information for a biography. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article written about him in detail in a good source: [27] That article makes numerous arguments for notability. I am finding fairly substantial mention of his films in reliable sources. Many of the articles that mention him as passing describe him as a "hit screen writer": [28], "seasoned screen writer": [29]. One text you can find in a google news search but can't read the full text of describes him as "legendary". Yes, he's below the radar for most english-readers but I am seeing more than enough evidence for keeping. Cazort (talk) 15:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This guy is a screenwriter of some of the biggest blockbusters in Malayalam films. The sources are clear as shown by Cazort. Salih (talk) 17:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 17:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies WP:CREATIVE, as established by User:Cazort. Abecedare (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. G11, A7 Tone 16:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping Kaya: Book of Judan

Self-published book with no indication of notability. Search for "Keeping Kaya: Book of Judan" results in 49 "unique" links, while "Keeping Kaya" gets 57. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 14:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A novella available from a print-on-demand place. One “filler” news story in a minor paper. Nominated article appears to be promotional spam by the author. —SlamDiego_←T 15:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - vanispamcruftisement from an amateur writer who has gotten "published" by a vanity press. I wish her well, but still a blatant advertisement for herself and her book; could have been speedied. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. G4 Tone 16:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chagos Islands national football team

fails WP:N and WP:V. Was previously nominated and deleted but speedy was declined as previous AfD was 2 years old. Nonetheless this team have still not played a match. Stu.W UK (talk) 14:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the result of the last AfD. There is nothing new so there shouldn't be a different outcome. Tavix (talk) 14:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted - copyviolation of this site. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How - to develop self-discipline?

Wikipedia is not a how to guide. DFS454 (talk) 13:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Soldiers of Heaven. MBisanz ^talk 08:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heaven's Army

This used to be a redirect to Soldiers of Heaven. It was turned into an article about a mmporg 'guild', and when I found it I replaced the redirect, which has been removed again. I've looked - it doesn't meet our criteria at WP:NOTE. dougweller (talk) 09:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to redirect and protect as unsourced and unsourceable from reliable sources. Consider whether the MMORPG guild deserves a side-mention in Ragnarok Online.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment AnthemRO sounds like it's almost certainly a private server. Wouldn't get mentioned in Ragnarok Online.

Delete Fails notability. --SkyWalker (talk) 14:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to Redirect There is nothing notable, and unlikely to be so. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to Redirect and Protect per User:S Marshall. Lychosis ^T/C 10:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Global digital divide. MBisanz ^talk 08:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Information Inequality and Social Barriers

This looks like a personal essay utlizing Original reserach. DFS454 (talk) 09:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. “Original research”. —SlamDiego_←T 15:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Essay. Nick-D (talk) 07:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge The article is not OR as the concept is well-known and sources are provided. A prose essay is the style we expect of our articles and so the stylistic criticism seems empty and is not, in any case, a reason to delete. We are already have a more substantial article upon the topic - Global digital divide - and so merger seems appropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with SlamDiego and Nick-D -- this reads like an essay full of original research. Matt (talk) 17:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks quite derivative to me. Please give an example of this original thinking. Note that WP:COPYVIO and WP:PLAGIARISM require editors to write their own prose and so an original presentation is mandatory. You need to demonstrate that there is some new idea here. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge As per the Colonel. Article is about an importat subject and can be improved with time FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. X clamation point 01:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gobstopper (film)

Fake trailer for a fake movie. Everybody else seems to agree with that assessment. That, coupled with the fact it was posted by FunnyOrDie which all they do is parody. Q ^{T C} 09:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 17:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no evidence that Christoper Lloyd is in this "movie" [30]. Hoax film trailer. JamesBurns (talk) 02:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's not a movie whatsoever - just a spoof trailer. It's not on IMDB. It's not upcoming. It's not anything - it is what it is - make a Gobstopper (Internet Meme) or a redirect to Funny or Die at best. Can you imagine getting the rights to the CCF franchise to pull of a real movie? Khigh (talk) 02:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just a spoof trailer, non-notable. Skier Dude (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, funny, but no 3rd party coverage. Deletion Mutation 16:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC) N.B. !vote of sockpuppet of blocked user struck through. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 06:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Media Temple

AfDs for this article:

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

advertising without relevant content. content not suitable for an encyclopedia. self-promotion and product placement. lacks substantial 3rd party objective evidence of notability from reliable sources Arrowhead (talk) 07:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mysteriously, two users seem to have nominated this article within a few hours of each other, causing all sorts of confusion. The other one, Sinope09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), used the following incredibly similar nomination text at WP:AFD/Media Temple (2nd nomination):

They advertise their product/service without relevant content. The content and subject is not suitable for an encyclopedia. The company's position is for self-promotion and product placement and the article lacks substantial 3rd party objective evidence of notability from reliable sources.

I've speedily closed the other AFD as redundant to this one. Zetawoof_(ζ) 09:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a mystery. The creator of the article tried to delete the first second nomination AFD. Arrowhead (talk) 18:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, Toytown Mafia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is uninvolved beyond having commented below. Zetawoof_(ζ) 22:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All of these issues appear to have been addressed in the previous AfD, which was closed as "keep". While the current sources are a little subpar, they're adequate, and I see no content in the article which seems particularly advertorial. Zetawoof_(ζ) 09:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Articles with sub-standard references should be improved, not deleted. Toytown Mafia (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is self advertising (which is not a goal of the Wikipedia)and there is not even one 3rd party references given. Nothing links to this article. Additionally Media Temple is a small not notable company (for an Encyclopedia like Wikipedia) which doesn't even have an ORCA entry (see ORCA.bpn.gov). Media Temple is not a pioneer of grid-hosting (see as reference: I. Foster, C. Kesselman, The Grid: Blueprint for a New Computing Infrastructure, 1999). Arrowhead (talk) 18:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC) - — Ucla2009 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- I really don't see how lacking an entry on a particular government procurement database has any bearing on the company's notability. Most web hosts don't participate in government contract bidding - especially as government agencies usually do their own hosting. As Euryalus notes, there are already some third-party sources, and neither a lack of incoming links nor potential factual inaccuracy is not a valid reason for deletion.
  Also, you've already implicitly voted by nominating the article for deletion. You don't need to state your position again. Zetawoof_(ζ) 22:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note, I have sticken the "delete" !vote by the nom Ucla2009/Arrowhead to avoid confusion. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 23:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note about your Note, you are not in the position to negate my contribution to this deletion discussion.
- Comment - If the article was advertising, why would half of it be about the deficiencies of their most popular service? Toytown Mafia (talk) 12:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - more secondary sources would be good, but the article does contain third party references, one of which does describe it as a pioneer of grid hosting. As I said last time we had this AfD, it's not exactly Microsoft but there is moderate independent coverage in industry media. Euryalus (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, Media Temple Inc. is not a pioneer in grid hosting (see reference given above). Additionally grid hosting provided by Media Temple did not work at all, so what was the notable invention? They replaced it by cluster hosting which is also invented by others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.93.94.16 (talk) 00:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - the book you're referring to is searchable at Amazon[31], and doesn't appear to mention Media Temple at all. To assist this discussion, could you please post the actual sentence(s) from the book that support your case that Media Temple is not a pioneer of grid hosting? Euryalus (talk) 00:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Amazon's "Look Inside" feature only lets you preview text in the first few chapters of most books. Zetawoof_(ζ) 02:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Really? Hmm, showing my ignorance there. Mind you I've searched in this one for the word "grid host" and found references to pages well into the body of the book, so perhaps the entire thing is there. Either way it would be appreciated if the actual quote(s) could be posted here to inform the debate. Euryalus (talk) 03:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I'll try to send you a PDF of the book. If not, get a copy from Media Temple Inc. Btw, did you ever see the Media Temple Headquarters? I did and I assure you, there is only space for maximum 4 people to work not 84 as statet in the article.97.93.94.16 (talk) 05:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't need a pdf of the book, just the text of the sections or sentences mentioning Media Temple. If they're too long to post here, maybe Talk:Media Temple would work better. Euryalus (talk) 06:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a place to advertise small business. This is not appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.93.93.8 (talk) 20:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC) - — 97.93.93.8 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - Media Temple easily meets WP:N, WP:CORP or any other notability guideline you want to throw at it. [32] Ok, so it only meets WP:N and WP:CORP :) The article does need some major cleanup and sourcing, but AfD is not that place for that. Just click on your handy "edit" link and start fixing things. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 23:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G11) – blatant advertisement, notable or not. Article reads like a PR piece, which is wikispam. MuZemike 00:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As an AFD has been closed as keep previously, this article isn't eligible for speedy deletion. In any case, it's not "blatant" advertisement - there's an attempt at neutral coverage here. Zetawoof_(ζ) 01:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a place to advertise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.234.103.115 (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC) Delete[reply]

Delete* Article is blatant advertisement —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.234.103.115 (talk) 16:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC) - — 74.234.103.115 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete* Article is blatant advertisement as it reads like a PR article 67.139.199.2 (talk) 16:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC) - — 67.139.199.2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete* Article is blatant advertisement as it reads like a PR article75.149.94.17 (talk) 18:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC) - — 75.149.94.17 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment - Sockpuppetry is not a substitute for actual discussion. Please also note this is not a vote, so there's no point in IP-hopping just to add the same comment several times. Euryalus (talk) 00:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - comment to the above comment - this is not IP-hopping (how can you just decide this, because of it suit your needs?). Check the ip-addresses, and you will find out tha they are from all over the world and it is not forbidden just to write the word delete or blatant advertisement. It is not necessary to repeat the already given reasons for a deletion of a not notable company which is doing excessive self-advertising and giving unproved statements. This article is not worth to be in an Encyclopedia like the WIKIPEDIA. It it a just loss of quality of the Wikipedia if you keep it and this it not, what the community wants. Arrowhead (talk) 22:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The fact that they're all making the exact same comment within a few hours of each other is incredibly suspicious, though. Zetawoof_(ζ) 23:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I note also that immediately after the three IP's added exactly the same comment, a fourth IP, User:75.149.94.17 made repeated attempts to also add it, constantly deleting it then coming back every hour to have another go.[33] With respect, this is exactly what you would do if you were hoping for the IP to change. No other expanation springs to mind for the dozen or so edits, especially as that IP had already commented earlier without apparent difficulty. Euryalus (talk) 23:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        YOU might know, that there are unexperienced users (the one you are talking about comes from Scotland! check IP)und you might know the fact, that there is usually not more then one ip change within 24h for dial-in or dsl-lines. If I would really enforce our company employees to give their statement here, that would result in a couple of hundreds different statements with different ip-adresses but I did not and Im not dependent on dsl-users, ask them to try to VOTE more then one time.Believe it or not! Forget all your theories of conspiracy. The article in question is not worth to be kept in a project like the Wikipedia! Just imagine how decision maker of the Encyclopedia Britannica or other big Encyclopedias would decide about this. With regards Arrowhead (talk) 23:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        You seem extraordinarily familiar with the details of these users' activity. What is your connection with it?
        Also, 75.149.94.17 isn't Scottish. It's a Comcast Business line in Illinois, registered to "ELITE GAMES". Zetawoof_(ζ) 01:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        and you seem extraordinary associated to (or maybe paid by) Media Temple Inc?! The user I was talking about had an ip related to BT ignite somewhere in Scotland. I don't know a user from "Elite Games" in Illinois but its good to see, that this ip is not a competitor of Media Temple Inc. isnt it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ucla2009 (talk • contribs) 04:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are inexperienced users in this discussion. I am one of them. At any rate, the point remains that this is not a site to advertise and the article should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmsorensson (talk • contribs) 04:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC) - — Mmsorensson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 05:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE Checkuser has determined that Sinope09 (talk · contribs) is Ucla2009 (talk · contribs) and that neither is related to the various IPs that have commented MBisanz ^talk 05:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Disregard logical fallacies in the above discussion.—At the top of the AfD page, it says: "Before listing an article for deletion here, consider whether a more efficient alternative is appropriate. For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem." This is what should have been done.—AfD is not cleanup; the AfD process determines whether Wikipedia should have an article with this title at all. In this case, it should because Linguist has shown that Media Temple is a notable company. If there's spam or advertising, fix it.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:BEFORE. AFD is not the place to clean up an article.Smallman12q (talk) 10:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I concur with the users who argued above that this article needs cleanup, not deletion. I see the people arguing to delete as just repeating the same argument without engaging in the discussion. If we want to make it read less like an advertisement, how about incorporating these sources: [34], (Italian:) [35] written specifically about something this company screwed up? If you want sources in general, here are 213: [36]. Clearly notable! Cazort (talk) 16:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong Delete~~ The article does not meet the criteria to be kept in an Encyclopedia like the Wikipedia. The Company is not notable regarding the wikipedia Concept and project. No 3rd party links for revenue and/or number of employees are given. No 3rd party link is given which proves that Media Temple is the inventor of Grid computing (which is well known in IT since 1999 as far as I know, just read about Grid computing and/or hosting in the aforementioned source. Also Media Temple had a CCR (Central contractor registration) for small business in webhosting - see the requirements for this at bpn.gov. Also the assumed sockpuppetry by Euryalus is not proven. Even if 2 or more useraccounts using the same ip address and do contribute to this discussion, it is not neccessarily an evidence for sockpuppetry (same user) because different users might use the same proxy server and its ip address.

This discussion, the rescue flag, the behaviour of Euryalus and the blocking of the AFD initiatoris very unkosher! I have saved this discussion and will report it to the board of the wikimedia foundation resp. to their lawyers which I do know personally. I think the leadership of the wikimedia foundation will check is case, because they had great support from my company in the past regarding trademarks and important .eu-Domains. I guess they will not accept, whats going on here.

Dr. Heiner Neuling, CEO, Infochannel Group, Germany —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.93.93.8 (talk) 19:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - Thanks for taking the time to express your view. A couple of points - firstly, you have already !voted here. I'm sure this is just accidental, and I've indented this, your second "delete" !vote to avoid confusion. Second, your statement implies a legal threat. If that wasn't your intention you should reword your comments. Thirdly, you say the article is not notable and does not have third party references. It would be helpful if you explained why you think this, making reference to the notability criteria. The article does appear to have third party references, so I'm a bit mystified why you say it doesn't. Lastly, you say you're a donor to Wikimedia. That's great and I hope you keep it up. However that doesn't entitle you to any special rights over article content, and doesn't particularly advance your case in this discussion. Happy to discuss any of these further. Euryalus (talk) 21:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment to comment - First off, I don't wanted to start a legal thread (I just explained that to an editor, see my ip-adresses talk page) and it is not sockpuppetry here. I do keep on supporting the wikipedia in the future and I do not want to have any special rights over the content of any article but I can't see any 3rd party content in the article. Everything provided is some kind of self-advertising of Media Temple Inc. The increase from 25 to 84 employees since August 2008 is very uncanny regarding to the companies history. They have not proven their pretended revenue yet. It is a small business company which might be good in public relations but this is not a criteria to meet the wikipedia quality standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.93.93.8 (talk) 00:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Primarily because there seem to be no coherent arguments for deletion that I can see. Dr Neuling's threats demonstrate both ignorance of Wikipedia and of NPOV. The also flout Wikipedia guidelines for discussion. The idea that Wikipedia should adopt editorial policy to satisy donors is offensive to all who have made Wikipedia what it is today. I also note there has been substantive deletion from the original article over the last few days and would ask that these deletions be considered for reinstantement. It is difficult to work out whether Doctor Neuling is attempting to publicise the article virally or to censor it but the strenuous and orchestrated mobbing attempts to remove it through repetitious and vacuous "argument" would seem a very good reason to not only keep the article but to protect it. I would also like to praise all the admin involved for their admirably calm responses. Thank you LookingGlass (talk) 20:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete* [I am stating delete but perhaps this should be "amend". I think the article is dodgy in that normally when I l0g on to a site there is a lot less overt promotion. If there are concenrs why not have the entry re-written and have a wider inclusion? For example include other Media Temple companies - which is why I presume there is a debate.JulietCSLC (talk) 21:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC) ][reply]

It would be helpful to understand what you consider "overt promotion". The article two days ago had far more content, and a great deal of that concerned problems the company had had with its technology. You should refer to the Wikipedia criteria on article writing for companies. Basically reasons for inclusion are notability (for instance being written about on several occassions by third partes not blogs etc) and that the articles on companies should not be written by someone connected with the company to ensure no conflicts of interest and a NPOV. All of these criteria have been met in the article. If someone wants to write another article about another Media Tenple which satisfies these same criteria they can do so. It is really had to see what the point of this debate is. LookingGlass (talk) 21:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reasonably substantial aricle by Hewlett packard about Media Temple that can be viewed at http://h71028.www7.hp.com/enterprise/downloads/MediaTemple_CaseStudy.pdf or on the HP site at http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/newsroom/press/2002/020814a.html I'm able to fnd quie a lot of information on them and they seem noteworthy if you're interested in the technical aaspecs of web hosting http://www.tuaw.com/2008/06/17/media-temple-launches-beta-for-vps-running-on-leopard-server/ In case someone's going to expand the article. LookingGlass (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is not an "article", that is a case study produced for the purposes of advertising. It does not come close to meeting Wikipedia's reliable source guidelines. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, HP does that for everybody which uses their servers. It has nothing to do with the importance or notability of a partner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.93.93.8 (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with lookingglass that there are no real reasons for deletion. i also believe it should be expanded. Fatmanandlittleboy (talk) 21:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Fatmanandlittleboy[reply]

Though I strenuously object to the blitheringly obvious meatpuppetry going on in here, I searched several databases and could only find a single reliable source (the Mar08 Inc. article cited in the article), and Media Temple is a one-off mention in the article. I must conclude that the article, at this time, does not meet WP:CORP. Delete. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all sources self-published (or not RS -- Hewlett Pakard press release "announcing" that Media Temple wisely choose to buy things from Hewlett Packard?). Clear fail on CORP. Wikipedia is not advertising, and this should be kicked to the curb accordingly.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC):[reply]
cmt just realized i'm about the only delete who isn't a sock puppet (maybe one or two others). Well, i stand by my reasoning, but it makes me feel icky.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm the other one I think, and I still stand by my deletion rationale, even if it's not a speedy as noted above (yes, I did not look at the logs). That being said, I do not appreciate the sock/meat puppetry as well as legal threat going on here. MuZemike 23:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of you need worry, you are not being lumped in with the other deletes - at least not by me, and I presume not by anyone else. Although I can understand, and offer sympathy for, the "icky" factor. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Zetawoof, et al. Company seems notable enough. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Have you checked this company's history, credentials and claims? Theyclaim to have invented technology "Grid Hosting," that has been aroundfor many years. If one were to do their research, they would find thatmany of the stats describing revenue, employees, etc. are notaccurate. What goes around comes around. I believe that when people donot come from a space of integrity, transparency and truth in businessand life it comes back to them 100 fold. If not here then fromsomewhere else. This is not a comment against Wikipedia but thecompany in question. Wikipedia is an amazing source of information andan incredible community platform. I actually have a voice here! Thanksfor the opportunity to share my perspective.Illwill1k77 (talk) 01:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC) — Illwill1k77 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment I have the same negative impression of this company, that it conducts business dishonestly. But it clearly meets wikipedia's notability guidelines. Your arguments are not arguments to delete--rather, they seem to point to the fact that an article on this company should exist and should cover the negatives. As the two links I provided show, this company has received fairly extensive negative attention in reliable, independent sources. Go on google news and you will find more. This company is not well-liked. A good article will be transparent, and will reflect this. Cazort (talk) 14:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to comment - just look at the Revision as of 13:22, 5 August 2008 of the article. The company had only 25 employees and a revenue of about $3.500.000. The company startet in 1999 with maybe 2 persons and maybe hat 25 employees at the ed of 2008 (almost 10 years to grow so). Now, 3 month later, they pretend to have 84 employees and a renenue of about $14.000.000. Isn't that a giant leap for media temple? but still a small step for mankind!97.93.93.8 (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having little revenue or few employees is not an argument that the company is not notable. I argued above that it is notable becasue it has received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources is. This is the essence of WP:N, the general notability guideline. Cazort (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-Your stance is correct on that ground. Little revenue or few employees is not an argument that the company is not notable according to the Wikipedia guidelines. It does, however, say a lot about the character, credibility and soundness of the organization. On dictionary.com the definition of notable is a person or company of prominence and distinction, noteworthy---a leading light. Little revenue and a few employees is not notable, especially if the statistics have been exaggerated by the company itself to make them look like something they are not. I'm sure you would agree that that is not noteworthy either. I am aware of the notability guidelines outlined by Wikipedia and they don't touch on any of these areas, which is unfortunate. But I would like to make another argument based on the guidelines presented. Wikipedia notability notes state that - "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published "non-trivial" works of their own that focus upon it." - "...Even non-promotional self-published sources are still not evidence of notability as they do not measure the attention a subject has recieved by the world at large." - "Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of interest by the world at large." The coverage this company has received from third party resources is evident but not substantial enough to be considered notable by the Wikipedia standard. Third party resources are non-trivial and non-substantial. See Notability Notes section #2 and #5. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.93.93.8 (talk) 23:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with you that, in the case of this company, any self-published information coming from the company is not reliable and should not be considered in this notability discussion. I disagree though with your second point, in that I think though that there's more than enough coverage in more reliable sources here. Cazort (talk) 14:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick look around found mentions of the company in Wired, Inc., InfoWorld, and ComputerWorld. Sounds like they meet WP:CORP to me. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 23:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment After a deeper look, all given links are blog entries or self advertising. Does not sound like they meet WP:CORP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.93.94.16 (talk • contribs) 09:33, 26 March 2009 97.93.94.16 (talk) 19:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reply: Oooh, nice attempt at trying to make it look like I was reversing my !vote, but sorry. I've added the {{unsigned}} tag to your comment to show that I wasn't the one who wrote that. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 01:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reply to reply: you are not permitted to make modification to my comments, thats why I deleted your "unsigned" tag. I do not have to rely on shady tactics to get my point across. 97.93.94.16 (talk) 19:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DoriSmith is permitted to modify a comment by adding the identity (in this case an IP address) of the editor who made it. Whether intentionally or not, your comment after DoriSmith's looked as if it was from him/her, and that s/he had changed their mind from keep to delete. All DoriSmith did was clarify that issue. Euryalus (talk) 19:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As Euryalus said, It's absolutely allowed to append signature information to the end of an unsigned comment (note: that's append, not modify). It's particularly useful to see not just who wrote it, but when they wrote it. And in this case, I've added it back in so that anyone reading this can see when it was written. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 20:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now, regarding your blanket statement: none of those articles appear to be advertising (imo). The one from InfoWorld does sound as if it was taken from a press release, but as it has a byline of an InfoWorld writer, that means it at least passed editorial checking. The Wired and Inc articles are straightforward news pieces. And while the ComputerWorld article is a blog, it's a blog from a reliable source, so that makes it reliable as well (per this page). It absolutely meets CORP. And please don't mess around any more trying to make it look like I've changed my opinion. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 01:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment: unencyclopedic A quick look and you will find out that the article is {{unencyclopedic}}.97.93.94.16 (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reply: I don't know what this is in response to, but if an article isn't encyclopedic, that's not a reason for deletion, that's a reason for it to be cleaned up. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 01:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment: if an article is unencyclopedic, that means it is not worth to be in thisencyclopedia.97.93.94.16 (talk) 19:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we already know that you think this article is "unencyclopedic" (e.g, it shouldn't be in an encyclopedia). That isn't an adequate reason on its own, though. See Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Just unencyclopedic. Zetawoof_(ζ) 19:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm just fascinated by the way all these sockpuppets and meatpuppets are doing everything incorrectly, to the point where I'm wondering if it's actually reverse psychology. Are they actually from (mt) and just faking a half-assed attempt to get rid of their article? If so, they're doing a great job! (the lengths I go to try to WP:AGF...) Dori (Talk • Contribs) 20:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 01:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

British Imperial Lifeline

Unreferenced; not clear why it needs its own article. Slac speak up! 05:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 07:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was an important concept which greatly influenced Britain's military and colonial policies from the 18th century until 1947. It should be possible to find lots of references on this topic, though I'm not sure that the article is correctly named. Nick-D (talk) 07:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I can see why this was nominated, can someone find some references for it please and maybe even expand it a little. Then I'll be more than happy to !vote "keep". Ryan4314 (talk) 12:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have no desire to expand this article that was created with an "everybody knows that" attitude, but there are sources [37] that someone can use. Mandsford (talk) 12:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Mandsford's Google Books search indicates, there's clearly plenty of reliable sources. Just a poorly written article. Joshdboz (talk) 19:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the article doesn't cite any references at the moment, it appears that many potential references do exist.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Unscented (talk • contribs) 16:53, 24 March 2009
Keep I agree there is little content in this article, however, as has been said above it is an important concept in British and colonial defence planning and policy. The article definately needs a lot of work, however. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I note there is a lot of agreement that it is an "important concept", but not very much on whether we should keep the article itself. As it stands, it is worse than useless; who is going to volunteer to fix it? Or doesn't all the relevant information belong at British Empire? Slac speak up! 04:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be consensus that it's notable and could have its own article. If an editor really wanted to merge it they could propose that on the relevant talk pages, but there's nothing that says we can't have stubs for a while. Joshdboz (talk) 05:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Highly notable topic. Blatant case of failure to follow WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, per the cite of WP:BEFORE by User:Colonel Warden, we don't delete topics (except in BLP cases) simply because the existing article is unreferenced or poorly referenced. The notion that an article stub "is worse than useless" is evidence of a dramatic miscomprehension of the purpose of deletion. As above it is for articles that can't be fixed with normal editing. This means the topic itself is non-encyclopedic or what is there can't be identified or cut back into a couple of sentence stub. This is not meant to be an attack, but please, give this some thought: does this contribution help to make this a better encyclopedia? I don't see how trying to delete clearly notable topics without even trying to improve them yourself achives anything but a waste of everyone's time. Time which could be spent actually writing, editing or researching articles. T L Miles (talk) 23:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment To the above two editors (and especially User:T L Miles), please comment on the nomination, not the nominator. Your comments appear to assume bad faith or laziness on the behalf of the nominator. It's perfectly reasonable to nominate an article for deletion when it's had a bad title, little content and no sources since it was created about two a a half years ago. I note that neither of you have made any attempt to improve the article. Nick-D (talk) 07:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: With respect, nobody has explained to me in this discussion (1) Why the minimal content in this article can't be relegated to British Empire and kept there, (2) How the topic, in its own right, is encyclopedic, ie. in need of its own article, and what this article will contain. My personal suspicion is that the title of the article is Original Research, given that a quick google turns up practically no results outside of Wikipedia. It's not my responsibility to turn this article into something useful, given that I don't see what it's doing outside of British Empire, or even why the article is titled the way it is. An article that is unreferenced and not demonstrably useful certainly makes Wikipedia worse; frankly, assuming that my nominating this article for deletion is a "waste of time" is itself a misunderstanding of the purpose of AfD. Slac speak up! 05:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment 1) I agree that a merge might be more appropriate, but they go through the process set out at WP:MERGE rather than AfD 2) The topic is notable, but its title is awful. Nick-D (talk) 07:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are several hundred books which use the phrase or something similar. The contention that this article and its title is OR is quite mistaken. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Where else but in WP can one quickly find an explanation for an obscure term. -MBHiii (talk) 14:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY with rescue by Joshdboz. Bearian (talk) 15:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Obviously encyclopedic. Ottre 17:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Keep After reading some of the above, I'm convinced its a notable topic, and not just one guy passively referring to it as their lifeline on one occasion. It was called that quite often apparently. Dream Focus 18:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty notable and sources exist, the rest is regular editing. -- Banjeboi 14:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Classical Hamiltonian quaternions. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tensor of a quaternion

Contested prod. This is a POV fork of Classical Hamiltonian quaternions by a single purpose account and his sockpuppets. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - merge into Classical Hamiltonian quaternions (if not already there). Describes Hamilton's concept only. Koeplinger (talk) 01:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirection would be acceptable; I don't think we need the link, but it is not particularly harmful; tensor of a quaternion in the modern sense of tensor is not likely to occur. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Can we avoid an edit war? Abstain from voting For the love of god, can we keep this article to avoid an edit war? The point of view fork argument is not a very good one, because this article is also linked from the main article. I propose that Hobojaks and Koeplinger reach some sort of agreement, where each compromises? If we don't reach a consensus here, it will be a long time before we have one again.Caylays wrath (talk) 00:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry apparently having a voice of reason in these discussions is inappropriate, didn't understand that before, user name calays wrath is retired from this discussion, as is user name hobo jaks. From now on I will be making comments only under the name Hamiltons wrath (talk) 11:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and do not merge. Appears to me to be original research, making an obscure argument about semantics based on original sources that do not directly address the argument it makes (and cannot, because the argument seems to be about concepts that were deveoped after the sources it references), i.e. original synthesis. Also self-contradictory: 'Hamilton did not [...] define a tensor to be "a signless number" [...] Hamilton defined the new word tensor as a [...] signless number'. JulesH (talk) 17:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In our modern language, Hamilton considers two different codomains for his tensor function (in 1843, these distinctions were still being worked out); the range is still the continuum from 0 to (positive, if necessary) infinity. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Abstain for now (Being a 19 century rhetorical device I can neither confirm or deny that I have already voted under a different user name) On condition that the meat puppet above does not have his vote counted I looked at his contribs, and he has never contributed to a mathematics article before. There is an entire section of my book Elements of Quaternions titled the tensor of a quaternion. That section alone is larger than the entire present article classical hamiltonian quaternions. Great material that was hoping that some of you mortals would discover at some point and add to the article. This was the original thinking of one of the original authors of the main article for which this was a long planned sub article. The article currently has some problems, but it is also contains the first efforts of our new quaternionist Septentrionalis as well as the first contributions of an administrator. I propose that we take Septentrionalis efforts as good faith efforts, and that we not destroy them because when an editors first attempt at something gets deleted they tend to get frustrated and not work on the subject any more. If you wanted to recruit a really good expert on this subject then I would suggest Tatarov, who was cruelly bitten the last time he attempted to contribute on the subject of quaternions. Tatarov posits in his pear reviewed published article that quaternions can indeed be used to formulate general relativity. This fact was recently vandalized out of the history article. To enlist his aid however Gentelmen I propose that we agree that he has permission to cite himself as a source. I by the way claim the same privilege.Hamiltons wrath (talk) 20:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)Switching this account to my voting one, sorry for any confusion.Hamiltons wrath (talk) 15:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Note Deleting this article will break an uneasy truce agreement. I will view it as an act of edit war. I view this third attempt delete this article as deliberate vandalism. Proposing to delete it is trolling. This ongoing vandalism is unacceptable, and is being conducted by people who have not read any of the reference material being discussed. Their intention is to keep Hamilton's point of view out of Wikipedia entirely. They are all meat pupits who have never really contributed. Remember that in order to achieve consensus, I agreed not to move all material in classical hamiltonian quaternions article into the main article. This continued harassment will in my view violate this agreement. Further discussion with you people is pointless.

Lets see a show of hands, how many people participating in this discussion have actually read Elements of Quaternions up to article 214? How many people have actually read Lectures of Quaternions. How many people have read even a basic decent book about quaternions from this time period? You are proposing to move material back into a main article in order to introduce gross factual errors.

Perhaps we should assume good faith on the part of Septentrionalis and let him have this obscure sand box like region and let him work on it, instead of introducing gross factual errors into a main article. Is that his purpose, do delete the the entire article a sentence at a time, and to introduce factual errors into the article? Why is he helping with an article he proposed to delete? If he really wants to contribute material we should give him the chance. I invite him to change his vote, in which case he could win an assumption of good faith, and help build consensus.

Remember when it used to say that tensors are positive numbers and when you add multiply or divide them you still get a positive number but when you subtract them sometimes you get a negative number called a scalar. If you are going to find some pretext to delete key statements from an article like this in a deliberate effort to destroy its logical consistency what is the point of even having an article? So much analysis has already been deleted from the article so as to take it completely out of context, which again I view as deliberate vandalism.

Go head, I don't really care, but after you dump the some of the idiotic content in this article into the other article, please cut the other article down to single a paragraph. Thats the goal here for most of you, keeping Hamilton's point of view off wikipedia. One last thing, everybody go back and read the consensus agreement that everyone agreed to about keeping the main article that this sub article belongs to. Didn't we all agree that Septentrionalis was a black hearted little troll? He enjoys making trouble. He will bring his same slash and burn tactics to the main article no doubt. The main article does not cite any inline sources, except for the ones that I put there. It is being run by people who are cool aid drinking believers in linear algebra, and is based on unreliable sources.

Go back to a pre-vandalized version of this article, and you will notice that I had long ago created a link to what was at the time an empty stub article, and had always intended to develop it further. I have some really good material to put in the article, just don't have time right now. Notice that Versor, Bi Quaternion and a lot of other good sub articles were started as branches off this original article, deleting this name space

Hamilton, Hardy and Tait are reliable sources, as this edit war developes people will have to start reading them, and maybe that is a good thing, because as they do they will start to see that every thing in this article is verifiable. I might be willing to change my vote to again achieve consensus, but this is really the last straw, if this article gets deleted it my be a long time before a consensus is reached again. So delete and declare war if you wish Gentalmen, you have sown the wind, you will reap the whirlwind. Hobo jaks is a retired user name no longer participating in this article. From now on I am Hamiltons WrathHamiltons wrath (talk) 10:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete both articles merge into main articleHobojaks (talk) 18:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changing user name in this discussion see talk pageHamiltons wrath (talk) 11:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree; topic entry page (quaternion) should focus on overview and textbook understanding; historical article (Classical Hamiltonian quaternions on its origin. The work that still need to get done on the historical article does not warrant accusatory tone, "wrath", "crackpot" name calling, and other child's play here. WP:SOCK is a guideline, not an accusation. We've all made our point. Koeplinger (talk) 01:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- PS: Other than his/her brushy entry a while back, I'm supporting Septentrionalis views and effort. Koeplinger (talk) 01:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly you are supporting the efforts of a contributor with questionable motives. He submitted the article classical hamiltonian quaternions for deletion, when he did not get his way, he deleted some good analysis which would be absolutely essential for any reader actually wanting to learn about Hamilton's approach to quaternions. You never addressed my second point, in my book Elements of quaternions I have a rather large section titled the tensor of a quaternion. There is a lot of really great material in there that should go in this article.Hamiltons wrath (talk) 15:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Classical Hamiltonian quaternions AfD was entered per anonymous request. The material is significant, by its historic influence alone. Personally, I like it as well and find it interesting; but in an edit dispute like the current, personal likings and interest become secondary here, and we must support the material through general significance. The Hamilton-centric view should fit perfectly into one article, which is why I don't think we need Tensor of a quaternion. I also believe that this perfectly positions the view as an "alternate". Not sure where your negativity comes from. If you want to change what the world thinks about quaternions, then the ball is in your court: You've got to prove it, which means work, publish, defend, etc. Looks like you've got the persistence and diligence to do so, and I hope that years of work (likely outside other activities that'll actually pay you money) will not be discouraging to you .... Koeplinger (talk) 00:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: I am not using the term "fork" correctly, I meant more something of a counterposition. Anyway. Thanks, Jens Koeplinger (talk) 01:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I supported Keeping Classical Hamiltonian quaternions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the sock puppet rules, and not really sure they apply here. First of all there are users commenting in this discussion that feel they are being stalked from article to article, and I don't think that users who feel they need protect their identity because they are being stalked can be excluded from participating in these discussions. Second the sock puppet rules don't apply to users who present contradictory arguments, but rather to users that just say me to, in order to make it look like their side has more support. Third this rule does not apply to users who type arguments in first person using the name of historical figures as a rhetorical devise, especially if the have been using these names for a while.Caylays wrath (talk) 01:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note I just reverted Hamiltons wrath who removed a comment by Caylays wrath and altered the comment by Hobojaks. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User name Caylay's wrath is no longer participating in this discussion, I checked the rules on this an apparently having a voice of reason in a discussion like this is not allowed.Hamiltons wrath (talk) 10:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After carefully reviewing the rules on sock puppets, which I still feel don't apply to users who feel they are being stalked from article to article by vicious vandalizing trolls, I am retiring user name hobojaks, and caylays wrath from this discussion. Sorry for any confusion, those participating in this discussion who are not meat puppets, drawn into the discussion are not confused. Give me a second to reflect the new user name with which I plan on voting in this discussionHamiltons wrath (talk) 10:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is forbidden to remove other people's comments from discussions, especially deletion discussion. If you disagree with them or feel they should be discounted, simply add a comment to that effect underneath. Only the administrator closing the discussion has the power to discount comments altogether. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for any confusion, from now on I am only using User name hamiltons wrath in this discussion. I need to strike out that argument if you will permit me?Hamiltons wrath (talk) 10:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As long as you can prove you are the same user, there's no problem. See your talk page for further information. Using your old account to perform the requested edits would be the easiest way to resolve this. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hamiltons wrath is no longer a 19th century rhetorical device, but a voting participant, wikipedia is so technical, sorry for the confusion, please let me strike out content that might cause confusion, I can then long on to any accounts you need me to in order to provide what ever verification you wish.Hamiltons wrath (talk) 11:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

redirect classical hamiltonian quaternions to main article classical hamiltonian quaternions is being ruthlessly vandalized. Main article should not exclude Hamilton's point of view. An article should not exist to justify making a main article so point of view. In order to achieve a consensus in the discussion on deleting the article classical hamiltonian quaternions, it was agreed that we could actually have the article. This agreement was not honored. Instead it ended up that classical hamiltonian quaternions was an easy place for people to vandalize. Deleting this article is a symptom of this ongoing vandalism.Hamiltons wrath (talk) 11:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You are correct that Classical Hamiltonian quaternions could be considered a fork from the main quaternion article. This is justifiable through its historical focus, which is narrower than today's textbook understanding, and also differs in several points. Capturing differences over time is notable in itself, and a fork is a well-suited editorial tool for this. Hamilton, Tait, and their peers are certainly notables originators, so I don't see the risk of deletion, either. The Tensor of a quaternion article, however, is misleading as it writes about Hamilton's view only, which makes the material perfectly suited for Classical Hamiltonian quaternions that's already there. Koeplinger (talk) 00:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

not an edit fork I was looking at the rules on that and I must point out that the basic structure of this article was planned out long before this latest spurt of vandalism started. There may be a problem with the content presently in the article, but not with the structure itself. For me deleting this article is going to feel pretty much like the last straw. I will take it as the sadly misguided efforts of one user, taken advantage of by someone with bad intent. So one Septentrionalis you could change your vote to keep, help a little to convince me that your intentions are not malicious.User:Koeplinger I think you are a great guy, but you are sadly misguided about excluding Hamilton's work from the main article. At one point I gave a little, so that we could all reach an agreement. Deleting this article would pretty much do it for me, I changed my vote last time to achieve consensus, now don't you think it might be your turn? Once consensus is lost, it is hard to get back, and it is going to seem to me, that this consensus was lost because people went back on their word. So it will be fooled me once shame on you, but once this article gets deleted, me agreeing to things that I don't really believe in order to get consensus, and it will be almost impossible to convince me that Septentrionalis is acting in good faith.Hamiltons wrath (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this discussion needs to be extended. Quite interesting for us nerds. :-) Bearian (talk) 01:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 05:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There seems to be much controversy here. I recommend that we focus on finding sources for the introduction of the page, that is, the text: In mathematics, some thinkers believe there is a relationship between the norm of a quaternion and the tensor of a quaternion. Some writers define the norm of a quaternion as having the same formula as the tensor of a quaternion, while other writers define the norm of a quaternion as the square of the tensor. My response to this is "some thinkers/some writers"--who? If this is not sourceable, I would say to Delete this page as it would be original research. If it is sourceable, then I think the discussion should focus on whether there's enough material to justify its own page and keep or merge into the page discussed above. As it is, my gut tells me this is original research just by looking at how it is written. Cazort (talk) 16:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

note Technically Hamilton's book Elements of Quaterions is divided into different books, however the entire 11th section of Hamilton's second book is devoted to the subject of the tensors of vectors and quaternions.[[38]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.86.76.11 (talk) 20:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment i think expert help needs to be requested, whilst the article is poorly written it may have potential if there are sources. --neon white talk 04:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An unsalvagable self-contradictory mess, riddled with vagueness and pov. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as unsalvagable as for as deletion policy is concerned. "vagueness and pov" are not reasons for deletion. --neon white talk 08:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Neon white. How bad the article currently is is irrelevant to deletion. Wikipedia:ATD reads: "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion.". The discussion here should focus on whether this topic is notable. The link added by the anonymous author above does seem to point towards this being a notable topic. Are there other sources though? In particular, are there any sources justifying the remarks in the introductory paragraph? This seems to be key for me. Cazort (talk) 14:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Direction of Traffic Flow Most of the people coming to this article are going to be coming from the main article, wanting to learn more about Hamilton's notation. They will be coming from the main article section about the norm of a quaternion. So we need to have some really basic stuff, and introduce people gently to the point that a quaternion has a tensor.

Its notable Hamilton's thinking about tensors is notable, from not only a historical point of view, but very possible from other points of view as well. Tait wrote extensively on the subject of using quaternions to represent stresses and strains, before they really had the idea of a stress tensor. In a three dimensional solid, since there are different stretching factors in the different directions, you need more than one quaternion. See Tait An elementary treaties on quaternions[[39]] Perhaps just a little editing of the article might help to convince the skeptics? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.86.76.24 (talk) 01:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Koeplinger. The article is riddled with original research / mistakes. The first paragraph sets up a controversy for which there are no sources. After stripping the original research, it comes down to "Hamilton and later 19th century mathematics defined the tensor of the quaternion q to be the quotient between the length of the transformed vector qv and the original vector v. This quantity is nowadays called the norm of the quaternion". I don't see why we need an article on that. It's enough to add this to Classical Hamiltonian quaternions#Tensor. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

question Thank you for your opinion,Jitse Niesen however I was wondering if you had carefully read the citations to the entire section of Elements of Quaternions dedicated to the rather involved subject of the tensor of a quaternion? Also have you had a look at Taits work on representing stresses and strains using quaternions before coming to this verdict? The present content of the article is not really relevant to this discussion. For people who claim to have read the material that should be included in this article, here is a test question, how did Hamilton and all the classical thinkers define the tensor of a quaterion. Here is a hint, its notable but not how it is done on the main article on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.86.71.104 (talk) 18:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not here to play games or solve tests. Just claiming that it's notable does not convince me. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reading might convince you Not trying to play games here, but if you actually read even a small fraction of the vast amount of material that will provide great source material for this article it might change your mind. Your recent comment suggests that you are not willing to do the reading needed to make a qualified well thought out comment. I take it that this means that you are also not willing to spend the time to go back and read the discussion for deletion for history of quaternions and for classical hamiltonian quaternions? Just trying to clarify your position? Also you said you were casting your vote in solidarity with Koeplinger, if he were willing to change his position in order to achieve a consensus would you be willing to do so as well. Also I am really excited to hear that you are part of a large block vote, because Koeplinger is voting in solidarity with Septentrionalis. Following this chain of logic, if Septentrionalis were willing to change is vote we would then get a chain reaction consensus. Sadly Septentrionalis has demonstrated a lack of willingness to do very much reading on the subject, there is a ray of hope in that he is the author of the text you point to as being so offensive. But time is up for that easy test question to see who has been doing any reading. Now you will be able to read the answer in the main article. Next test question, what is the tensor of an imaginary scalar, a bivector and a biquaterion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.196.194.214 (talk) 00:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did read parts of Hamilton's, Cayley's and Tait's books before I commented. I read the old discussions for deletion when they happened. I'm not casting my vote in solidarity with Koeplinger, I said that I agree with him. I had already answered your test question in my first comment (now it's my turn to wonder whether you read anything I wrote). You say that the text is written by Septentrionalis = User:Pmanderson, but I can find no evidence of that in the article history.

Hey it is really great that you are reading! That makes you just the type of guy we need to help out with that last section of the article. It is not proposed by any means that the article should be limited to only Hamilton's nomenclature. In fact while this branch from the main article has been planned since before these deletions discussions began, the motivation for starting to work on it now, was exactly as you have pointed out, a need to discuss the concept of the tensor of a quaterion, but not completely limited to only the 19th century. Hence in this article, we could include other newer ideas as well as Hamiltons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.86.71.98 (talk) 20:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Going back to the article under discussion, I'm afraid that the material you added makes it even worse in that it uses 19th-century language. I'm open to the argument that we need an article on the norm of a quaternion (which is the same as the tensor of a quaternion), but it should use modern language and the title "norm of a quaternion". However, we do not need an article on the concept of the norm of a quaternion explained in a language convenient for 19th-century mathematicians, and that is what you seem to want. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't agree that the article should be written exclusively in Hamilton's notation, but I do insist that Hamilton's ideas be included. Part of the trouble here is that not very many people actually adding content to the article. Certainly other points of view besides Hamilton's should be included, that as we all know is one of the main pillars of wikipedia. On the other hand, if work is not getting done on the last section of the article, I don't think it is really fair to single out one editor, for not working on that particular section. This would be a great chance for you to help out here! I am trying to be welcoming, and I apologize if I have not read all your arguments, I will look at them more carefully in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.86.71.98 (talk) 20:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions All references are from one guy's book. Is he well known among scientists/mathematicians for his work? Do they teach his stuff in any schools? Has he won any notable awards for his work? Has he or his work been used in a popular science fiction novel, film, cartoon, or comic book? Dream Focus 19:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mean that "Hamilton guy"? Thanks ... Koeplinger (talk) 19:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I know nothing of this subject, so I'll stay out of it. Dream Focus 22:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arguement on Notability Type on rocking IP address dudes! Looks like the arguements comming from IP addresses are much more convincing than those from other sources. So to recap, this deletion discussion was started by a user who is harrassing the people who are actually generating content on the subject. He appears to be gone for now, but apparently some new people are joining the discussion. These people are welcome, but should start by going back and re-reading the discussion on deleting the articles classical hamiltonian quaternions and history of quaternions. In these discussions we have already agreed that the subject matter being discussed in this article is notable.

Arguement on Structure The issue before us now is how to structure the material we have already agreed belongs on wikipedia. Just to fill some people in, Hamilton wrote a vast amount of material on the subject of the tensor of a quaternion. Tait wrote 8 books on quaternions, and also wrote devoted a great deal of attention to the subject of the tensor of a quaternion. Please go back and look at the structure of the article classical hamiltonian quaternions The terms are carefully defined in the correct order, that Hamilton used to define them in Lectures on Quaternions. So it starts out by explaining what the symbols for plus, minus, multiply, and division mean. At that early state in that article before the term quaternion has even been defined yet, it is not good structure to have a vast section about tensors, that will overload people who don't even know what the definition of a quaternion is. Having this sub article was a planed part of the structure of the subject long before the present article deletion mass insanity began. This article is needed to support good structure.

Arguement to Keep based on need to discuss larger time period

Another user who has one of those fancy colored administrator tags on his signature has correctly pointed out that the subject of concept of the tensor of a quaternion, needs to be discussed not just from a single point of view, but from all points of view. This article would be greatly improved if someone would get to work on finding some sources other than Hamilton and his cohorts. These other points of view are vital and needed for this article. One problem with the article right now, is that not enough people are contributing to it, and the people who are are well shall we say, Hamilton fans. It is proposed that people with this point of view be welcomed in this article, but that we also work to get some other people involved. The online versions of books on Hamilton's notation and terminology is Ultra-modern. This has been the case for about two years now, since all these great old books have come on line and are viewable for free. Saying that Hamilton's ideas are 19th century, might have worked in the 20th century, but times have changed and now writers from the 20th century are also getting a bit dated. However, one reason for having an article on the tensor of a quaterion outside of an article devoted exclusively to thinking developed before 1901, and from a particular school of thought, is so that viewpoints other than those of Hamilton's and Tait's and the other writers of that particular time can be included. In these terms not having this article would violate a basic pillar of wikipedia, that all points of view must be included.

Arguement to keep based on vast amount of material on notable subject

Early arguments made before the present structure of the article was created for deletion are now moot! The growing section on the properties of Hamilton's T operator, alone are notable enough to justify this article. And there are a lot of properties, and identities that Hamilton proved. These should be written not only in Hamilton's ultra-modern notation, but where possible also in the various other kinds of notation that were used in the bygone era of the 20th century, which I have a pretty good source, that calls this the dark age of quaternions.

Problematic section The last section of the article is somewhat problematic. It has a sad history as well. It started in the middle of an edit war. After loosing the battle to delete the article on the history of quaterions, an element within our community that wants to supress Hamilton's point of view, next deleted the entire article paragraph by paragraph, and replaced documented facts listed in cronological order, with a rather bias historography. Not content with this they then broke the links from the history article to the article on Hamilton's notation, and broke the links from the main article on quaterions to the history article, leaving no way to actually get to the article on Hamilton's notation from the main article. Their next step was be begin the same pattern of deleting paragraphs from the article on hamilton's notation. Having deleted all of the text explaining that Hamilton's calculus is a different context from linear algebra, they next began do delete sentences from the core content of the section actually explaining the notation. At that time the first section of this core content was the section on tensors. The first tactic used was to take a sentence explaining that tensors being simply positive numbers could be added, subtracted, multiplied, and divided, and explaining that with all of these operations other than subtraction the result was another postive number, but that when tensors were subtracted it could produce another type of number called a signed number or scalar. I have checked into this and learned that you can say things like 2 - 5 = -3 with out having to find a souce for it.

So as the harrasment continued, at one point a user who did a lot of really great work copied the contents of the section of the article about tensors into a new article. The harrasser that created this content then proposed his own text for deletion, but a really cool administrator actually worked on it a little and made it just a little bit less nonsensical.

To answer a really good question, the first lines of the problematic section which were written by an administrator, can be sourced. In fact the all that is needed to get page scans directly into Cayleys original writing on the subject is to go and copie the link from the article on classial hamiltonian quaterions. Tracing down the history of the other point of view might be a little more difficult.

Arguement on point of view fork. At this stage can someone please inform the people working on the main article that they really need to include another definition of a quaternion, as the quotient of two vectors. Point of view forks are cause by main articles that are point of view. Having a main article devoted completely to some stale ideas from the 20th century, and excludes the greatest thinkers of the subject of all time, creates a structure problem that it is not really fair to blame on this article.

Test questions Sad to say but over the history of this discussion people have come here just to say me to with out providing very valid arguments. In order to be more welcoming, I suggest that we not count these non-cotributers unless they actually read some of the material discussed and demonstrate that they have a basic understanding of the material by answering simple questions. Todays test question should be really easy. If the tensor of a quaternion is the same as the norm, then since a biquaterion has a tensor, it must have a norm! You can always divide to biquaterions unless their tensor is zero, which is true for all the elements of Hamilton's calculus. If something has a tensor of zero it has an infinite recprocal. So to get out of the clueless club, someone needs to explain why biquaterions are not a normed division algebra, and not use origianl research to do it, I am talking about actually citing a source here. The page number in Lectures on Quaterions is 666 and a great first step would be to look and find an author who cites this page number from Lectures.

The other test question is if a Lorentz transform can be written as a biquaterion, and a biquaterion has a tensor which is all or in part imaginary, seems like this should raise a major red flag on the whole concept of lorentz transforms? Somebody some time must have thought about this, so coming up with a good source for this problem would also be a good contritution. A good place to look would be in writings from the 1920's when books on special relativity were written using quaterion notation.

Well so anyway, I think that with these as yet unanswered arguments, the only possible logical conclusion if we were to count the arguments, and not the me to, votes would be to keep the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.33.250 (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 01:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dogeared

Total and utter spam. Looks like a company brochure. Includes pictures of products, "best known product lines", and vague statements such as "Dogeared Jewels have graced the necks of the world’s most gorgeous ladies." Dmol (talk) 05:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Agree with Dmol ttonyb1 (talk) 05:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:SPAM CopaceticThought (talk) 05:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is really sad to see that an admin turned down a SD request. This article meets G11 of the CSD, but oh well. Besides from it actually meeting SD criteria, the article is based on self-published sources, published by the subject. WP:RS clearly states that even though self-published information by the subject can be used as a source, the article shouldn't depend on it, which is the case here. Did I mention that it meets G11 of CSD?--Legion fi (talk) 06:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can understand why an administrator would consider it borderline. Remember that to satisfy that criterion not only must the text be advertising, but also it must be blatant and require a fundamental rewrite in order to become anything else. I can understand the position of an administrator who, looking at this particular article, would opine that the rewrite wouldn't be fundamental. There are some peacock terms to subtract, and some wholly unsourced sections to excise. But one might not have to start again from scratch when fixing this.
  The important issue thus becomes whether one can fix this, and that is a matter of the existence of independent in-depth reliable sources, for which AFD is the place. Making such a determination safely involves having more than one pair of eyes look for sources. It is not safe to leave it to speedy deletion. Unfortunately, neither Ttonyb1 nor CopaceticThought have helped Wikipedia at all in that regard.
  You're the only one in this discussion to look at sources, and even you have only looked at the sources cited in the article. You haven't looked at what sources exist and are available. You can help Wikipedia a lot more, in this AFD discussion and in all other AFD discussions, by doing that. Look for sources on each subject yourself, and report what you do and don't find, and we'll have a firmer foundation for saying, at the close of the discussion and later, that we have solid reasons for believing that the process has reached the right conclusions, in accordance with Wikipedia:Deletion policy.
  And the same goes for Ttonyb1 nor CopaceticThought, whom I encourage to make much better contributions to AFD discussions, with the legwork put in. Uncle G (talk) 11:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-I agree with Uncle G about the borderline nature of the article and the need to review sources; however, I reviewed the sources twice, once prior to someone making with the SD tag and again before adding my 2 cents in the AfD and both times found them to be insufficient to support an adequate rewrite. If someone wants to state that I should have discussed this lack of support in the AfD, fine, but please do not assume I provide opinions without doing the necessary legwork. Thanks… ttonyb1 (talk) 16:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for sources, I cannot find any. There are no books or scholarly articles that even mention the subject. Newspaper article coverage is limited to two directories of jewellers where one can buy jewellery, with no in-depth coverage of an description. And there's nothing on the WWW except advertising, press releases, MySpace sites, and other publications that all originate with the company itself — the same sorts of things that the article itself currently cites. There's nothing independent to be found at all, it seems. It's all autobiography and advertising, neither of which is trustworthy. The PNC is not satisfied. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 11:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: did you see the briefing that was in National Jeweler magazine a couple of weeks ago? I personally doubt it, but this store could be the next big thing in California as the recession hits. Ottre 11:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Delete. Despite Uncle G's recriminations, I note he too fails to provide alternate sourcing; article WOULD require a ground up rewrite even if sources were found, and it reads as a massive SPAM violation currently. No saving this mess. ThuranX (talk) 11:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Regardless of profitability/niche marketing, no evidence of notability outside of California. Ottre 16:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Delete - seems like a promotional article with no real encyclopedic substance. Would need a significant rewrite even assuming the subject is notable. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is nothing notable about this small company, and there is no significant coverage other than self-promotional sources. If the article is to be kept, it needs to be totally rewritten, as the tone of the article in its current form is thoroughly inappropriate. It should have been speedied under G11. Horologium (talk) 12:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pure spam, and a likely recreation of Dogeared Jewels & Gifts, already deleted under G11 three times - in one day! TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 01:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lucílio Batista

Article holds no assertion of notability. Subject is a referee who has refereed during a few championships, but nothing making him specifically notable for doing his job. ThuranX (talk) 04:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - one of the top football referees in Portugal. One of the 9 FIFA internacional referres from Portugal. lijealso (talk) 20:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 03:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep official who has refereed at the highest level - continent-wide championships & international matches - and therefore meets notability. GiantSnowman 03:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply No, it doesn't. Refereeing makes you notable? What about regular season Referees of the major league level? Umpires? Which sports? This article, and frankly, all of the Portuguese referee category refs, seem to lack any actual assertions of notability through WP:RS. This is a walled garden of non-notable individuals. All of them should be up. ThuranX (talk) 04:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article needs some work but subject seems notable through his involvement in professional matches and tournaments. Camw (talk) 03:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ReplyThen how about some proof of that? ThuranX (talk) 04:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - FIFA Confederations Cup 2003 Game 1 and Game 2 Camw (talk) 04:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - EURO 2004 Game 1 and Game 2. Camw (talk) 04:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Plus the numerous games listed in the Profile page linked to in the current article are plenty to show notability. Camw (talk) 04:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - no, those do NOT show notability. that's just an index of who was there. There's nothing supporting that this person has done anything individually notable, and there's nothing that indicates that being a FIFA official is inherently notable either. ThuranX (talk) 22:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Under the WP:Athlete guidelines, all the players from those games are notable, so the referee who plays just as important part in the game should be notable as well. Camw (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        But that's explicitly NOT in the Notability guideline, and per Any Biography, he'd need special recognitions, awards and such. He has none. ThuranX (talk) 22:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry, but I see the subject as perfectly notable. You aren't convinced otherwise and that is fine, but my assertion that the article should be kept will remain. Camw (talk) 23:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        But you haven't explained any reasons, beyond a vague ILIKEFIFA. ThuranX (talk) 00:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually I've said that I believe officiating at international and major continental level tournaments satisfies me in regards to notability. As for your comment in the last edit summary, it doesn't really matter if you give my opinion no weight, it will be down to the closing administrator to weight up the comments and opinion of everyone here in regards to consensus. Camw (talk) 00:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This guy has refereed several games in both the Champions League and the UEFA Cup, as well as in World Cup and European Championship qualifying games. Perfectly notable. – PeeJay 12:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on what, exactly? Why is that notable? It's not. Notability is not inherited. ThuranX (talk) 22:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Refereeing at continental championships and beyond is definitely meeting WP:N. --Soccer-holic (talk) 12:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then why are there not valid sources discussing him? Notability is not inherited.ThuranX (talk) 22:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Despite the repeated protestations above there are, as there would be for any top-level football referee, many reliable sources available, for example here is an article on the web site of a national radio station about the subject, this article and the last three paragraphs of this one in Portugal's newspaper of record are about him, another national radio station has an article here. They are just a few of the sources that I could find in the couple of minutes that I have available now. Football referees at this level are household names nationally and internationally (I'm sure many people in most of the world who have only a slight interest in football would recognise this guy if they bumped into him in the street), and their actions (or inactions) are discussed ad nauseam in the media every week, so there will never be a lack of potential sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 06:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tea party (protest)

Trivial events. Non-notable except to those in attendance. — Red XIV ^(talk) 04:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is encyclopedic in that it chronicles a significant development in 2009 USA. Martel,C (talk) 05:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that all of the events were covered by the newsmedia shows they were notable, like 'em or not. Borock (talk) 04:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You can't have an article for every tiny pack of cranks. Carlo (talk) 04:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well noted in the media, well referenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmol (talk • contribs)
Delete - agree entirely with Carlo. This will not go anywhere, and if it does, we'll cover it then. Slac speak up! 05:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - very well sourced from various sources around the country, and The Economist does not tend to cover insignificant events. CopaceticThought (talk) 05:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trim and Merge to Homeowners Affordability and Stability Plan. This shouldn't be a separate article because of WP:NOT#NEWS, but it shouldn't be deleted entirely because it's a sin against the basic purpose of writing an encyclopaedia to remove well-sourced information.— The article as written is much too long. It should be a short sub-section in Homeowners Affordability and Stability Plan per WP:DUE.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename if it's kept - the current name is ambiguous with the Boston Tea Party, after which these protests were named. Zetawoof_(ζ) 09:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: Joel Stein's article in TIME magazine ("I Bought a Bad House", Vol. 173, Issue 9) establishes international coverage of the protest. The AFD stack is not the correct place to discuss merging two-week old articles. Ottre 10:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

"Merge" is a valid AfD outcome, so it's perfectly appropriate to discuss it here.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responded at your talk page. Ottre 13:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep- for now and revisit since it does seem like current event type material.Tom (talk) 12:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The lack of context in this article is surprising. Do people throw tea in the water at these events (as with the "Boston Tea Party"; author may be the only person who went to school in America and never heard of that)? Or do they gather around drinking from teacups and munching on cookies? It's probably notable enough for a keep, but this article can use some improvement.

Mandsford (talk) 13:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In one place (sorry, I don't remember where) local officials forbade the throwing of tea bags as they were considered to be pollution of the stream. htom (talk) 04:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, and revisit in a couple months. The number of stories we're seeing about it certainly does give the appearance of notability, but it would be better to re-examine things once the hype has died, to make sure that it really is as notable as we think it is. Umbralcorax (talk) 13:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, though I wouldn't strongly oppose a merge. As principal author of the article I think it could be better--mostly now it's just a description of Rick Santelli's CNBC rant (lifeted directly by me from Rick's bio) and a list of events. Local coverage of the events has been quite good and the planned Tax Day protests on April 15 are likely to get national news coverage. Attendance has varied from a dozen or so people to an initial police estimate of 3,000 at Orlando last Sunday, I agree with Umbralcorax that this could be revisited later in the year, when the hype has died down. By then a firm merge candidate may have arisen (meanwhile I'm sympathetic to User:S_Marshall's merge suggestion). Complete deletion of all mention of these verifiable events would probably not advance our aims. --TS 14:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have to say this is the first article I have seen on AFD with so many independent news sources. Needs a lot of cleanup, but obviously not a one event violation and obviously enough independent, third-party sources just in the article to jusfity keeping. The Seeker 4 Talk 16:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this series of events shows no evidence of being of any historical significance. Fails WP:NOT#NEWS. --Atmoz (talk) 17:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep these events are very significant as they have become more common. The mainstream media refuses to report on them and, as such, they have the appearance of being unimportant when they, in fact, are.--Barinade2151 (talk) 17:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I currently have no opinion on whether to Keep or Delete. If it is kept, I support re-naming the article since the current name could be confused with the Boston Tea Party. Also, someone needs to go through and fix the date formatting. This is a US based subject, so it should be US formatting (meaning MM/DD/YYYY). TJ Spyke 19:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the date formatting. The eventual name of the article, if it's kept, is probably worth discussing here. I'm open to suggestions. --TS 00:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I completely agree with Ottre. This article is two weeks old, and is still evolving. amram99 (talk) 20:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Atmoz, it fails Fails WP:NOT#NEWS. If it survives it probably needs to be globalised. The phenomena extends beyond America. Tea Parties have been used as a form of protest in other countries pre-dating the list of protests in the article. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 21:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now - WP:NOT#NEWS and a bit of Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms too. Furthermore if this ever were to deserve its own article, this would be a disastrous start - so there is zero merit in keeping it in case. Rd232 ^talk 23:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep well referenced article, no major issues which I can see. Ikip (talk) 04:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article passes WP:RS, but I agree it should be revisited in the near future to determine if this has lasting significance or was just a trendy publicity stunt. Pastor Theo (talk) 10:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A scrabble of small-town news outlets doesn't quite measure up to notability guidelines. Also a bit of WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOT#NEWS. At best, it warrants a brief mention in an article appropriate, perhaps Subprime mortgage crisis. Tarc (talk) 14:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, it seems like it scrapes in, with strong reservations along the lines of Tarc. Artw (talk) 19:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Tarc dsol (talk) 20:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Well referenced and with significant coverage in print and broadcast media. -- Rydra Wong (talk) 21:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see links to CBS news, and other notable news outlets. They got enough press to meet notability requirements. Dream Focus 19:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs better sourcing, as the "Tea Party movement" started back in January. htom (talk) 01:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.bostontea.us/ (scroll down) for an example of the use of the name in January, before Santelli caught the media's eye. It may have started before then, but was just ignored by the mainstream media. htom (talk) 17:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There appears to be enough independent press coverage to meet WP:notability. I've read and reread WP:NOT#NEWS, and I see nothing specific in that very vague policy that supports a delete here. —Kevin Myers 14:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a significant movement and growing fast. Kcarlin (talk) 16:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep One of the central issues of the Tea Parties is the refusal of many biased mass media outlets to cover them. 15,000 people showed up in Fullerton CA and the LA times would not print a story. How ironic that Wikipedia would consider deletion because of a lack of full press coverage. Many newspapers have covered this however and this movement is a leading story for online and television news coverage. 250 cities are now scheduled for the April 15 protest. Keep and watch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SCCbiotech (talk • contribs)

this was the user's first edit. Rd232 ^talk 21:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: What can anyone say? These are a completely notable set of ongoing protests that are described in a fair way. The Squicks (talk) 02:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Protests that are so big that the government has forcibly canceled them due to too many people... are a "tiny pack of cranks"? The Squicks (talk) 02:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. SNOW, in case this does not happen, the reason for it qualifies automatically for WP:ITN Tone 16:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Solar eclipse of April 8, 2024

Delete WP:CRYSTAL. Voofwd (talk) 03:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this isn't like most events — solar eclipses can be reliably predicted centuries into the future, far more reliably than can be things such as elections or sporting events. Nyttend (talk) 04:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well written, well researched event in the future. Rare enough to need its own article.--Dmol (talk) 05:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nominator just cites a policy, and uses it incorrectly. You need to look futher than the catchy "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball", and read the next line which says "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation". The timing of future solar eclipses are very well documented, and the article is well-sourced, so I cannot see CRYSTAL applying here. Actually using a crystal ball to predict the next solar eclipse is a violation of CRYSTAL, referring to publications which used the laws of physics along with mathematical calculations to predict it is not a violation. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thoroughly verifiable and predictable, therefore thoroughly encyclopedic. AngoraFish 木 11:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a reliably predictable scientific event. There were some inaccurate facts, but those can be cleaned up. Concur with others - does not violate CRYSTAL. ThuranX (talk) 11:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons given above. Locke9k (talk) 16:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony F. Smith

Reads like an advert; no third-party reliable sources supporting WP:BIO notability of subject. Prod tag was disputed. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as blatant advertising from its earliest edit. Nyttend (talk) 04:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep (non-admin closure). RadioFan2 (talk) 12:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Devon Birdwatching and Preservation Society

~~contested prod. Lacks notability, lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources~~ RadioFan2 (talk) 02:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - for my rational see here. Each English county has a regional birdwatching organisation. They are an important part of ornithology in the UK & such regional societies exist worldwide. One of their own reserves has had a page for some time now - if the reserve is a valid page surely the society which is responsible for it has to be valid. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn Article has been significantly improved, missed those google news hits previously, withdrawn.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SNOW. –Juliancolton ^Talk · ^Review 17:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Mellencamp's 21st studio album

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/John Mellencamp's 21st studio album

Filled with unreferenced rumor and speculation. Only link is to a primary source. If/when this album is released, references will be avialable and a proper article can be creaed. RadioFan2 (talk) 02:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Stop! Hammertime! Also, there are no sources to speak of. Reyk _YO! 02:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability yet to be established WP:CRYSTAL. JamesBurns (talk) 07:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unreferenced and meaningless--Michael (talk) 08:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think this sign sums it up. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 10:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this unnamed N-th album. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 16:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 01:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wx sand

Non-notable game. KuroiShiroi (talk) 02:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: article fails to establish notability. JamesBurns (talk) 07:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Clearly non-notable web content. I suggest a SD per A7 of the criteria. --Legion fi (talk) 07:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. After reading carefully the CSD, and considering the subject as a piece of software, A7 does not apply to it, neither do the rest of the criteria. Nonetheless, the subject lacks notability.--Legion fi (talk) 07:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no hits on Google News, first ten hits on Google seem to be either related to the game itself. forum posts, or this article itself. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 13:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability. --SkyWalker (talk) 14:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since there is no notability here. Drmies (talk) 20:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

17 Sai Hajimete no H

A single anthology of 7 one-shot manga stories. No reviews can be found under the Kanji title. Fails both WP:NOTE and WP:BK. And been prodded earlier, which is why I didn't add a new prod to the article. Farix (Talk) 02:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete completely unnotable anthology of seven unnotable "one-shot" mangas. No significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Fails WP:BK. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication of coverage by reliable independent sources. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 20:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is very rare that any manga gets any media coverage at all, therefor the notability suggestions/guidelines aren't reasonable for things of this type. Google gives me 15,300 for "17-sai hajimete no H" so a lot of people do read it, and talk about it online. No official English release, so of course most of those probably just read the illegal fan subs for now(some do buy once an official release eventually comes around). It was also published in a notable manga magazine, it surely popular with the thousands of subscribers, or they wouldn't keep it. Dream Focus 02:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Manga must meet the same requirements as every other subject. We can't ignore the rules for over 2,000 articles on manga series just because you don't like the guidelines. In fact, it is a basic requirement that all subjects most have some coverage by reliable third-party sources. Notability is not inherited from the anthology it was serialized in, nor does the number of Google hits many anything. And continually making WP:ONLYGUIDELINE arguments in every anime/manga AFD isn't going to convince anyone. --Farix (Talk) 02:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really? It has in the past. Some articles are in fact saved. Depends who is around at the time, and what they believe. Make a decision for yourself people, and remember, the notability guidelines are just suggestions, not absolute laws. Do you personally believe this is a notable manga? Dream Focus 02:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about what we think is notable, its about what we can verify to be notable. That's why the notability guidelines exists. Otherwise, we would have a uselessly subjective standard that basically boils down to either WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDON'TLIKEIT !votes. --Farix (Talk) 02:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly stop bringing this up in every single AFD. People decide on their own, through consensus, if something seems notable enough to keep in the wikipedia. The guidelines are just suggestions, nothing more. Dream Focus 11:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So long as you keep bringing up IAR in every anime/manga-related AFD you are involved in, I will keep pointing out that you bring up IAR in every anime/manga-related AFD you are involved in. --Farix (Talk) 21:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That there has been no corresponding article on ja.wiki for nearly three years is highly worrysome for notability. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether something has an article on another wikipedia or not, should not be a reason to keep or delete it here. Perhaps the type of girls who read it, aren't really into the wikipedia, having some other sites designed for them to talk about their interest. Dream Focus 11:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although it should not decide the entire fate of an article, a manga/anime series not having a ja.wiki article is in fact a good sign something is not notable. Should the article be deleted because there is no ja.wiki article? No. Is it worth pointing out? Yes, as a ja.wiki article can lead to finding japanese sources, or additional content that can be translated. Not having one, doesn't exactly fill people with confidence. It's certainly not a worse reason to decide an articles fate then googlehits, scanlation sites, or "manga anthology=notable and popular" arguements. If anything, it has more weight. Dandy Sephy (talk) 22:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It points to a lack of notability due to a paucity of Japanese language sources, which is a damning indication of its notability here. If there's no sources discussing it in its country of origin, it's highly doubtful there are the equivalent English sources here. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really now? So whenever a notable article is created, it wasn't notable until that very moment, otherwise it would already exist? Is it possible there are articles out there, not yet created, which meet the nobility requirement, but no one has bothered to create them yet? Just because something doesn't exist yet, does not mean it doesn't have the right to exist. Is there any proof that all current articles deemed notable, of this type of manga, came into existence within a certain time period of their creation? Dream Focus 01:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If YOU believe the subject is notable, YOU need to provide the evidence in the form of reliable third-party sources. Otherwise, you're just wasting everyone's time and borderlining on being disruptive. --Farix (Talk) 01:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wasting everyone's time, is having the same argument constantly. You do NOT need any reliable third party sources, to save an article. The editors participating decide whether an article is notable or not. They can follow the suggested guidelines to help them make up their mind, or ignore it. I have stated my case that being featured in a popular manga magazine, and clearly having a significant number of fans online, makes this notable. You apparently disagree with that. Everyone else will decide on their own, and a consensus will be formed. That is how wikipedia works. Dream Focus 02:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong! Oh so very, very wrong. Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V) is a key component of the five pillars that CANNOT be ignored, and it REQUIRES coverage by reliable, third-party sources. Any article that fails WP:V will be deleted regardless of those who say keep say. --Farix (Talk) 02:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And your case relys on arguements that are completely disproved every time you use them. You are talking about how wikipedia works when it suits you, but when it doesn't suit you you dismiss it as not being good enough. Ridiculous. Don't participate in deletion discussions if you can't take notice of what is said by more experienced editors (such as farix) Dandy Sephy (talk) 14:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The spirit of the rule is to keep the wikipedia from filling up with certain types of things(hoaxes, spam, original research, etc), which this is not. The spirit of the rule must be followed, not the word for word rule itself. That is what the policy says. To ignore all rules and use common sense. I see bestselling novels nominated for deletion, despite being bestsellers. According to the rules, they'd be gone, but usually we manage to save them. Here we have something that is very well read in a popular manga magazine, as well as through other sources, and thus is a valid article in the wikipedia. Dream Focus 21:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROVEIT --Farix (Talk) 21:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the wikipedia article for Shōjo Comic, which publishes this, it was published weekly from 1968 until the 1980s, where it started to be published twice a month. Do you think a magazine would last that long, and be able to come out twice a month instead of just once a month, if it did not have a lot of readers? Is there any reasonable doubt that a large number of people read this manga, and the magazine it is in? WP:Common Sense beats WP:wikilawyering. Dream Focus 00:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, you have no proof. So your claim that there are reliable, third-party sources, which is a requirement for ALL articles, can't be verified. --Farix (Talk) 00:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BK; no sources indicating any notability whatsoever. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Medelpad Rune Inscription 18

Although most likely Notable... No Content Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 02:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is Speedy material, but in consideration of its probable Notability, I thought I would give it the 5Day chance. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 02:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In general WP is not a guide to runestones. Unless something can be said about this one it should not have an article. Has the author of the article been contacted? Borock (talk) 04:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They have been now, yes. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 08:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no information to lose by doing so. It doesn't appear to be a common name (in English) for the rune as all 43 GHits appear to be Wiki mirrors so no way of expanding. TBH, I'm surprised the article has lasted since 2005 seeing as it has never held anything more. Nuttah (talk) 10:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If there are reliable sources, they aren't on the web or cited in the article. Looking at the Swedish WP page for it didn't help much either. After spending more time than is reasonable searching the web, the closest thing I found was that what MAY be M 18 is that it is a fake rune stone found in some church. Dendlai (talk) 10:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Nickelodeon (TV channel)#Nick Two. MBisanz ^talk 01:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nickelodeon 2 (US)

Wasn't really a television network the only difference between this and Nickelodeon is a three hour timeshift, tried to redirect but was reverted Caldorwards4 (talk) 02:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Nickelodeon (TV channel). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as it's the same station as Nickelodeon as stated above Alankc (talk) 04:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Nickelodeon (TV channel)#Nick Two. Doesn't have any of its own programming at all, and never did in the past, it's just a +3 channel. I was surprised there was an article made about this. Nate • (chatter) 05:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re-redirect to Nickelodeon (TV channel) - if all it is is a +3 channel. (Why should this time shift channel have it's own article? ITV2+1 or E4+1, for example, both redirect to their channel.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 10:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Not a notable timeshift. And for God's sake, protect the redirect so we don't just lather rinse repeat. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge/redirect/SALT to Nickelodeon (TV channel)#Nick Two, per above. Deletion Mutation 17:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Blocked sockpuppet. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 20:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) KuroiShiroi (contribs) 02:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Tatupu

Fails WP:ATHLETE and is a fluff piece. KuroiShiroi (talk) 01:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NO hes has played rugby for the Western Force a player is notable if he has played one game of professional rugbyYoundbuckerz (talk) 01:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep A member of a national rugby team and member of a professional rugby team, which are more than enough to satisfy notability.--TM 02:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep assuming that proof can be found for his playing for this club; as noted, professional sportspersons are inherently notable. Nothing here, however, to justify speedy keeping. Nyttend (talk) 04:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep assuming the copy vio is addressed and some effort is put in to cite sources such as this and this. Definitely meets WP:ATHLETE as a fully professional rugby footballer in an international top-level competition. florrie 06:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I put a infobox on there and its gone wtf ?Youndbuckerz (talk) 08:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doubleheader, Texas

While this claims to be a real community, at least in the past, I can't find a shred of evidence for its existence. There's nothing in the Handbook of Texas, which records ghost towns; there's nothing in the GNIS; and the only Google results are Wikipedia mirrors. Prove that this place exists (or at least existed) and I'll withdraw, but I have no reason to believe in its very existence. Nyttend (talk) 01:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I believe you are correct. I did some checks of my own and found nothing, nada, zip. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 01:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you see what the creator wrote at Talk:Doubleheader, Texas#Research? Uncle G (talk) 01:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I saw it before I edited the article; but that doesn't prove its existence. Nyttend (talk) 01:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It did point to a place to start looking for such proof, though. Uncle G (talk) 11:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If anyone is interested in researching this some more, this looks like a good place to start. It looks like they have a historian you can contact as well. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 01:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Even though I cannot justify my subjective opinion based on any Wikipedia policy, a developed version of this article would offer an insightful glimpse of early Central Texas. In order for reliable sources to be found, personal collaboration with one or more of the following will be required:
- Temple College, which has two history professors that specialize in Texas history
- Temple Daily Telegram, which may have old newspapers on microform that contain useful information
- Temple Public Library, which may have relevant information on microform and/or relevant literature
- Texas State Historical Association, which may be willing to assist in research
- Czech Heritage Museum and Genealogy Center of Temple, which may have historians familiar with Doubleheader
- Slavonic Benevolent Order of the State of Texas, which may have historians familiar with Doubleheader
- Bell County Museum, which may have historians familiar with the general area
- Temple Railroad & Heritage Museum, which may possibly have relevant information
I would like to again emphasize the importance of finding someone that is both Czech and getting on up there in years, as this is more likely to be a familiar topic with a generation of people that would already be well over 100 years old by now. — C M B J 04:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So only these people have the information? There's nothing published online; is there anything published in print? If the only reason I can't get the information is that I don't have the extant printed publications, that's fine, but if there aren't print sources, it's unverifiable. Advocating keeping, simply based on the existence of places that might have information, is against policy — whether such sources exist or not, you (not just some professional historians) are required to provide reliable sources. I understand that Wikipedia isn't always bound by rules, but having an article on an impossible-to-source topic — if that's what this is — is not going to benefit the encyclopedia, even if it does provide an insightful glimpse of early Central Texas. Nyttend (talk) 04:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - If no verifiable information exists, then we both can agree that the article most certainly does deserve to be deleted in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Seeing as this was a settlement, I have opted to take the stance that information very likely exists in print, but is simply unavailable on the internet. — C M B J 04:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then provide it; if the article is deleted and then you find sources, you can recreate — recreation is prohibited only when the article is essentially the same. In the mean time, however, there's nothing to prevent deletion. Nyttend (talk) 04:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, of course. It's seldom a good editorial move to create an unsourced article, and interim deletion is the most practical resolution in most cases. I most likely wouldn't have even tried to create this article in the first place if not for the fact that it relates to history and seems to be virtually unknown to the outside world. — C M B J 05:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        If something is "unknown" then it's not part of human knowledge. If it's not part of human knowledge, it's not within our remit. The onus is on the people with the unrecorded knowledge that exists solely in their heads to record and publish it properly, in the conventional ways with the usual fact checking and peer review processes, so that we can gain access to it. We as encyclopaedists can give them encouragement in that — We need people doing that, otherwise there's no knowledge for an encyclopaedia to contain. A tertiary source, and indeed a secondary source, is nothing without published research and other writings, documenting the knowledge in the first place, to precede it. — but it's still their task and not ours to do for them. Uncle G (talk) 11:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        By outside world, I meant outside of the immediate geographical area and on the internet. If it truly is unrecorded, then yes, it is the onus of the enlightened to properly publish it. — C M B J 22:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until information is uncovered that shows the town even existed. Borock (talk) 04:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice toward later recreation with sources cited. CopaceticThought (talk) 07:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of existence. Real settlements are notable enough without question, but "real" is a significant part of that. Happy to change my vote if evidence surfaces. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The creator must have had some source--I invite him to say on what basis he wrote the article. It is also possible that if the source is family tradition the exact name of the town may be somewhat other than specified here. DGG (talk) 15:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You hit the nail on the head. I learned of this place verbally. As of this morning, I have received confirmation from a local historian that the place did in fact exist, and was located in this area. I will see what I can come up with in terms of sourcing. — C M B J 16:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the USGS database has nothing on the place. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless WP:RS can be found proving its existence. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maasai national football team

AfDs for this article:

This page is about a football team who have never played. They are not notable, the only link provided is self published by someone who is a member of the NF-Board (the association who claims this non-team as a member). This link mentions the publisher's membership of the Board. Debatably this contravenes WP:COI and WP:CBALL but it definitely fails WP:N. This article was previously deleted, so would nominate for speedy deletion, but as PROD template was removed I feel it would be contested. Stu.W UK (talk) 01:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Stu.W UK (talk) 04:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete' as re-creation of deleted material, and as no sources can actually prove this team does exist as anything more than a vague concept in some people's heads. - fchd (talk) 05:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable team - if it even exists! Giant Snowman 10:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In the official website of NF-Board it's stated Maasai membership [40] since 25.03.2006 Calapez (talk) 13:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Being one of the fantasy football teams in the NF-Board walled garden isn't any sort of evidence of notability. The board itself is simply a self-appointed group of people who claim to represent the unrepresented nations without any evidence that they have any support from those nations, and its article only survived AfD because of a couple of silly season press articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly recreate if the team ever actually moves from existing on paper to playing an actual match -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT. This "board" and all its "teams" are simply a joke that's gone on too long to be funny any more. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Real Girls Media

Non-notable company. References do not support notability. They provide only data on funding and are press releases from company. ttonyb1 (talk) 00:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 02:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as essentially promotional in nature. I've added the __NOINDEX__ magic word and disabled the link to the company's site for the moment; these edits shouldn't be reverted unless the outcome of the AfD is "keep".—The principle on Wikipedia is, first your organisation becomes notable and gets reviewed by third party reliable sources, then it gets a Wikipedia article. You don't get to create the Wikipedia article as part of the quest to become notable in the first place.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for obvious reasons. Purely fails WP:N, with a lack of independent coverage.Spring12 (talk) 02:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 2 out of 9 references were press releases. I have now removed one, which leaves independent coverage in seven articles by third party reliable sources, including the NYT and the SF Chronicle. It's a notable company. MuffledThud (talk) 02:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep (non-admin closure). SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 18:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rodeo in the United States

Delete or Merge and redirect. This is a contnt fork of rodeo. Montanabw^(talk) 23:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am the author of the Rodeo in the United States article. This is an attempt at a well-balanced article in an "underconstruction" state. Yes, it needs work. My material is sourced from high grade reliable secondary sources per WP:RS. It was forced into a stand alone article as most of the material was aburptly and IMO hysterically deleted by Montana from the Rodeo article who carried on on the talk page about my work. Apparently, the Rodeo article is "hers". I didn't know that when I went to work on it and spent five days contributing to it -- even being encouraged on its talk page by others and being told I was doing a good job. I am the "lead editor" on both the Rodeo and Rodeo in the United States articles. I am 16 and Montana's disruptive, overbearing, confrontational style at WP frightens me and forces me to seek a corner where I can work quietly and diligently to create a decent article for WP. I feel like I'm being pistol-whipped whenever she shows up and I literally shudder when she does. For me, Montana has something of an ownership issue with rodeo. I'm afraid to do anything because I fear she'll come down hard on me and push me around. I have tried to work in a collaborative spirit with her and have encouraged her to contribute to the article. However, she has refused. Before making a decision please investigate the talk pages for both articles. I will probably be banned forever for trying to stand up for myself. Thank you for your interest, patience, and kindness. I'm leaving now and won't be contributing to WP. What difference does it make, I'll be banned anyway. I've met some wonderful people here at WP and I will miss them. Some have made my brief stay a pleasure and others have made it a living hell. Buttermilk1950 (talk) 00:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on the content, not the contributor. Montanabw, and others, have made a large number of content suggestions that need attention, and you should take a break from adding new material and work on rectifying all those suggestions, instead of attacking those who are pointing problems out. ++Lar: t/c 10:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep in good faith. Upon reading Buttermilk's comments and looking at the talk page of Rodeo, I can see exactly where he is coming from, but this is not the place to bring it up. In fact, I can see no reason for deletion really that cant be solved with a cleanup. Jenuk1985 | Talk 01:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close as keep without prejudice to a future AfD when the editorial dispute has been resolved.—This is not WP:WQA or WP:AN/I. Please take editorial disputes somewhere else.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is a very good article. There is no reason not to have an article on the topic. I'm sure that most sports have articles on the sport in a nation, Baseball in Japan etc. Borock (talk) 04:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for size reasons alone — if all this information is included in rodeo, the article will be too large. Nyttend (talk) 04:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is an excellent article and no valid reason was given for deletion. CopaceticThought (talk) 07:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userify until the extensive POV issues can be rectified. If they cannot, merge what can be useful and delete the rest. This article, at this time, is in no way "excellent", or "very good", as a couple of folk above claim... although I believe the primary author means well, the list of issues with it is extensive. ++Lar: t/c 10:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am strongly opposed to the suggestion, made here by Lar and previously elsewhere by Montanabw,[41] that this user confine contributions to a sandbox. --Una Smith (talk) 15:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article meets no criteria for deletion. It is not a content fork of Rodeo but rather a split; it has a related but different (narrower) scope. Montanabw already proposed merging these two articles and got no support (Talk:Rodeo in the United States#Merge). --Una Smith (talk) 15:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. WP:SNOW. –Juliancolton ^Talk · ^Review 17:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IL-2 Sturmovik: Birds of Prey

Delete lacks notability and per WP:CRYSTAL for a future release. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - unless anyone objects I'll be bold and bump this as a redirect to the article already written about this gaming series - IL-2 Sturmovik (video game) DiverScout (talk) 09:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep IL-2 Sturmovik: Birds of Prey Coming To Consoles - Kotaku, IL-2 Sturmovik: Birds of Prey Hands-On - GameSpot, IL-2 Sturmovik: Birds of Prey Preview - GameSpy, Official site, IL-2 Sturmovik: Birds of Prey First Look - IGN, IL-2 Sturmovik: Birds of Prey Preview - TeamXbox, IL-2 Sturmovik: Birds of Prey Preview - GamesRadar, IL-2 Sturmovik: Birds of Prey Preview - GameZone, Captain Blood and IL-2: Sturmovik: Birds of Prey Revealed - TeamXbox, IL-2 Sturmovik: Birds of Prey Preview - GamingExcellence and First Look – IL-2 Sturmovik: Birds of Prey - Gamersinfo Therefore this article passes Notability and Crystal. If this fails Crystal then please nominate all the upcoming games for deletion too. To the point if anyone is interested in improving the article here are the links. Thank you.--SkyWalker (talk) 14:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – one need not go far to find significant coverage via reliable secondary sources. Remember that it doesn't fail WP:CRYSTAL if it's verifiable speculation. MuZemike 17:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes notability by a mile and disappears over the hill. Mystic Meg doesn't come into it since notability is not temporary, whether it's a future game or vapourware or released it's still well documented by multiple video game journalists, at least some of whom have had 'hands on' experience with it. Someone another 18:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep&tag for improvement & expansion. Enough reliable sources cover the game to allow writing a sourced and verifiable article. MLauba (talk) 21:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This game clearly exists and has been the subject of a great deal of discussion in reliable sources; that it isn't done is immaterial. There's little prediction here, but lots of commentary on unfinished work. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets notability standard given that the predecessor product (IL-2 Sturmovik) is class-leading, and does not break WP:CRYSTAL as there is coverage in reliable third-party sources. Cynical (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 17:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Burning Valley (novel)

Contested PROD. PROD was removed without fixing the problem, namely that there are no reliable sources cited, and the author does not have their own article. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Google shows a lot of hits - I've added some sources based on that, and also tagged the article for rescue which may result in more/better references (I'm not sure how we feel about political sites as WP:RS for literature.) Artw (talk) 00:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep concur with above. JJL (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can tell you how I feel about it: it's dead wrong. WP:RS states that sources should have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." These two sources fall well below that bar. I also note that you tacked on the refs without changing a word of the article content to reflect what, if anything, you found in those sources, and that one of the sources is from a publication that the author himself is an editor of, and the article is an interview with him that does not seem to focus specifically on this book, but is more about communism and literature in general. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It gets even better, in the interview, Mr. Bonosky states: "Burning Valley was never reviewed in the press here or in England. None of my 10 published books have ever been reviewed in the press." Beeblebrox (talk) 00:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which would appear to be the sad fate of 1950s communist pulp authors in America. On the other hand it does appear to have been on the sylabus at Santa Clara University. [42] Artw (talk) 02:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now how about those reliable sources, find any? Beeblebrox (talk) 04:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google's top hit for Burning Valley (no quotes) is [43]. That university press site indicates comments or reviews from Simone de Beauvoir, from James Aranson in the National Guardian, and from Michael Gold in The Worker. This site [44] indicates commentary or a review by William Saroyan. Apparently it's now part of a series and has been reprinted [45] with an intro. by Alan Wald. Here's a survey of the author's work including this novel [46]. Two more articles on the author that also discuss this book in particular: [47] ("During the Cold War, his writing and publications flourished. The Burning Valley, rediscovered today as a major proletarian novel, was published in 1953. Its story deals with workers’ struggles in the Pennsylvania coal fields. The Burning Valley was reprinted in 1998 as part of The Radical Novel Reconsidered Series, published by the University of Illinois Press."), [48]. All this is from the first two pages of Google for Burning Valley Phillip Bonosky and should have caused nom. to reconsider the notability of this book. There's more on later pages, including a book review by Bruce Nissen in the Labor Studies Journal here [49] (see bottom of page) and a conference paper [50] and further evidence of it being used in university courses. JJL (talk) 13:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has a number of decent refs. This might also be useful. Zagalejo^^^ 07:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The material cited here from the academic reviews is fully sufficient. DGG (talk) 15:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This book is widely taught in Pennsylvania as a counterpoint to the more popular Out of This Furnace by Thomas Bell, another immigrant novel of steel which is set in the same steel town. It also is why the book is included on Wikipedia as a part of the Pittsburgh novels bibliography project. Yes, the article can be better, and my guess is that university students will do so over time--that's the way Wikis work--it is certainly worthy of inclusion now, especially because it was overlooked by mainstream media in the Red Scare 195s.Rudowsky (talk) 15:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what I don't get: I've got several users here pointing out sources, and yet the actual text of the article still remains essentially the same as when it was nominated, and no reliable sources have actually been added to the article. If these refs that have been found are useful, reliable, and informative, shouldn't they be added to the article with new content reflecting what it is in the sources? I don't think readers are going to come to the AfD to check the references... Beeblebrox (talk) 16:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly you should put your money where you're mouth is and work on improving the article using the references above, as it would be a better use of your time than complaining about a deletion that is obviously not going to happen. FWIW I think the article as it stands meets WP:N. Artw (talk) 16:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for my part, I'm hoping someone more knowledgeable in this area and better qualified to put it in context will do so. In any event, the question at AfD is whether it merits inclusion as a subject, not improvement of the article (although that's clearly desirable). JJL (talk) 16:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum referring to [51], I would certainly see a WP:SNOW keep as appropriate here. JJL (talk) 19:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If its taught in schools, then its notable enough. Dream Focus 19:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remixed: We're Not Gonna Sleep

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Remixed: We're Not Gonna Sleep

A dispute has been raised over whether any such album actually exists, or whether this entry is a fraud. Supposedly to be released last month, I can find no record of the album that doesn't seem to track back to Wikipedia. If there are valid sources please provide them. Dragons flight (talk) 23:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have searched, and have not been able to locate any valid references for this(that don't point back to Wikipedia). If there are no sources, then I don't see how this could meet Wikipedia's notability standards.Wacko Jack O 23:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums & WP:CRYSTAL. Searching pulls up no significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 01:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Subtropical Storm One

Unnecessary disambiguation page; "one" isn't a name, so it's essentially an indiscriminate list of storms which happened to be the first in a season. Fails WP:IINFO. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 22:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree 100%, this disambiguation page is not needed. -Marcusmax(speak) 22:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "One" is not a name, and there are some storms on that list that weren't officially called by this name. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — if we have three articles with virtually the same title (1978, 1982, and 1992), why shouldn't we have a disambiguation page? Perhaps not all of them were officially called by that name, but as it appears that some were, such a question seems to be a matter of content for that page, not for AFD. Nyttend (talk) 04:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The existence of the three articles cited by Nyttend makes the existence of a dab page desirable: "Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might use the 'Go button', there is more than one Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead" (WP:DAB). If some of the other items in the list have never been referred to as Subtropical Storm One, those entries can be deleted. Deor (talk) 11:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

weak keepnot quite sure about this one, but i kind of agree that ya, three articles and one name need a disambiguation. Fatmanandlittleboy (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)fatmanandlittleboy[reply]
Keep Convenient page serves to both disambiguate and provide some information. 07:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Femto OS

Nothing indicating notability per WP:GNG. I tagged it for notability a week or so ago, but the creator has not edited since the creation of this article, so I won't wait with this nomination as I might with non-single purpose users. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 18:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Only source approaching reliable I could find is this one; that said, it does sound like an impressive piece of engineering and I wouldn't be surprised to find more sources in the specialist press, which may well be inaccessible with a simple web search. JulesH (talk) 20:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Non-notable software. --Edcolins (talk) 10:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 23:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ACTRAN

Queried speedy delete as spam. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – article definitely written as promotion (though not blatant for G11) of a product. That or something that is better explained on their own web site. MuZemike 16:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this article contains information useful to understand what is Actran, as other articles like Ansys, Comsol, OpenFOAM and hundreds of others. The specificity of this (commercial) product is explained, and this information is useful to anyone interested in simulations, eg to decide whether it is scientifically appropriate to tackle a specific problem. Wikipedia is the best place to put this type of information because it is the only way to have at last an objective statement on how exactly this product should be defined, thanks to the feedback of the community (which is allowed to edit if anything is wrong, not?). It is by no means in contradictions with the rules listed in their own web site, to quote MuZemike: a wiki page must live and evolve through the community whereas commercial communication is fed only by the vendor. Fred SC (talk) 17:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - How is it spam? It tells me exactly what it is without any market speak such as, "ACTRAN is the complete solution for the most complex acoustic propagation problems..." Rilak (talk) 11:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to The Cheesy Adventures of Captain Mac A. Roni. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 19:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Mac. A. Roni

Article about a fictional character who has no notability independent of the series he appears in. KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it is a redirect to the main nominated article that was originally created as a mirror of that article: KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both As they are not notable. T-95 (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Cheesy Adventures of Captain Mac A. Roni, it's very much a plausible search term for this article. I would normally say merge, but there's already a lot of info in the target article. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 18:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 13:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per rationale given above by Lilac Soul. --mwalimu59 (talk) 18:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matchbox Recordings UK

Delete nothing showing that this repackager and advertiser is notable. If it is, then any artist having two albums published by them suddenly becomes notable too...lovely. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article does not claim any notability by showing any albums they have produced that have charted. -Drdisque (talk) 20:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:CORP. Searching pulls up no reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 22:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 23:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simone Sheffield

Subject does not meet criteria of WP:N — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 19:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn per WP:BIO. Cf. her IMDB page. Eusebeus (talk) 20:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A quick search on Google News shows there are many reliable sources. Including to the New York Times, Times, BBC News, Times of India, etc. No questions about her notability. -- Crowsnest (talk) 04:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think a couple passing mentions in a few articles is enough to qualify for WP:N, people are mentioned, quoted in news all the time in this capacity and it doesn't mean they should have a wikipedia page. I think she should be mentioned more then in passing about someone else or a minor project to be notable. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 05:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:BIO: "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability". There are many reliable sources quoting her, or using her as a source for their statements. Further she has (co)produced several films, satisfying WP:CREATIVE: "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work,..." -- Crowsnest (talk) 06:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there enough to satisfy that she has "played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work." If so then I will admit she meets notability for WP:CREATIVE. I just don't see that. What "significant" or "well-known" work has she played a major role in creating? We can't possibly have a page for every producer, associate whatever of any film ever released in the box office? They should meet some standard above and beyond just that. None of those films shes credited on IMDB are significant that I can tell. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 07:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment... actually wiki CAN have articles for every film and video producer... as long as they have coverage in reliable sources and whose assertions of notability can then properly sourced, so as to meet the inclusion requirements of guideline. Will be looking into expansion and sourcing this evening.... then I'll be back to either opine a keep or delete based upon what I will have been able to accomplish. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with a remark that this diff shows why editors need to put articles on their watchlist when they tag them. This is fundamentally promotional rather than encyclopaedic in nature, and as far as I can tell unsourced and unsourceable via reliable sources.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The editor you're talking about (TG4M) is Bobbi Miller-Moro the wife of Luis Moro who setup and solely maintained several pages for her friends, family and co-workers and just recently had her page (her autobiography) deleted on WP:N issues. There's obvious NPOV issues with this article since it was created and the bulk of content added by a friend likely acting on Mrs. Sheffield's behalf. Bobbi also stated she was going to hire a company to maintain these pages on wikipedia for her, so future NPOV issues could become a big problem for these pages. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 02:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Surely there are many issues with the quality of the article. But one has to distinguish between the notability of the subject (qualifying for having a separate article on WP, and requiring sufficient reliable secondary sources), and on the other side the reliable sources (which are lacking in the article at the moment) needed for the statements and claims made. To my opinion there are enough reliable sources to support notability of the article as such. A certain amount of primary sources for non-controversial claims can be acceptable, but I agree that secondary sources need to be added (although not to the extend as indicated by the citation tags at the moment). Non-verifiable matter can of course be deleted. -- Crowsnest (talk) 10:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I probably went a little overboard with the fact tags, but it goes to illustrate that virtually nothing there is sourced. What source there is is a primary source (or own websites). I don't feel that we should keep articles until we have sufficient sources to qualify it for WP:N and I don't think we've presented/seen enough to qualify it for WP:N now. Which sources are you referring to, specifically, that establish notability? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 10:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising, which has no reliable sources that establish notability or allow for verification of its claims. In general, we shouldn't have completely unsourced articles, particularly for BLPs. Bali ultimate (talk) 19:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and remove the fluff. A search on google books (some of which I have added to the article) shows sources that can been used to cite the article. Further, a seacrh including the names of her Bollywood clients shows her being quoted in many reliable sources (again, some of which I have added). I agree that it has many problems, but feel that with work, it can be made a suitable and encyclopdeic entry for Wikipedia per WP:CLEANUP... mostly, the hyperbole inserted by the original author has got to go... unless properly sourced. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
cmt beyond the passant mentions that she is an agent for the two indian actresses, everything else is self-published. The google books ref was actually to a 1983 issue of "The Advocate: The National Gay and Lesbian Magazine" -- while the search page indicates her name is mentioned in the article in question, the text isn't readable in the cite provided (here [52]) -- so i've removed that for now as it doesn't establish anything about her (not sure if the advocate is RS anyway, but it's a moot point at the moment). That leaves us with passant mentions that she manages the two indian actresses, refs on online databases showing she worked for motown (or in the screenworld annual). All the sources that mention anything about her are self-published. Still fails in my opinion on WP:BIO and WP:NOTE and WP:V (since all the info actually about her is not reliable). Specifically, she meets none of the criteria in WP:CREATIVE and WP:ENTERTAINER. Bali ultimate (talk) 22:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing -- "Screenworld" is a directory that strives to publish the basic data of every movie produced in a given year.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. I'm not impressed by the SPS about her "charity work" or the "name dropping" of other celebs. I will be looking to find independent sources that speak about her in relationship to her film companies, and covering her "coming out of retirement". And I feel that I may find her in archives covering her early career. And what's the deal about adding "fact" for her ethinic background? She says it herself and its not the least bit controversial...and it seems it not being specifically covered anywhere else shows that it is not of any special merit... and it certainly is no assertion of notability. I think we can accept her own word on her ethnic heritage. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's not overwhelming, but there seems to be enough ntoability to warrant inclusion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She meets the criteria for WP:CREATIVE, as she has played a major role in co-creating several a significant works as identified by the several award winning films that she has produced and co-produced. Esasus (talk) 17:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral-I don't think she meets the Notability criteria [[53]] and some of the materials lack reliable citations [[54]]. It is true that she is/was the international agent for two well known Bollywood actors [55] but is that enough to pass the notability threshold? I was leaning towards Delete but after following the recent efforts of some of the editors like User: MichaelQSchmidt I think there's a small chance that the article can be salvaged.--Louisprandtl (talk) 02:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Soongy

To quote the prodder: non-notable software. Wikipedia is not a collection of PHP scripts you just wrote. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 13:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable software, article added by the software writers. I'm sure this was deleted earlier but can't find it in the log.--Dmol (talk) 22:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable unreleased software covered by absolutely nobody. Bad form to write an article about your own product before it even hits beta, guys. DarkAudit (talk) 22:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton ^Talk · ^Review 17:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Twitrgrid

nn web application. SlashChose (talk) 12:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unable to verify notability. -- samj _in ^out 16:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unable to verify anything at all other than it existing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable, propriety software, merge to Twitter if appropriate. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Valerie Hoffman

Subject does not meet criteria of WP:N — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 20:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO as unnotable; her IMDB entry pretty much says it all. Eusebeus (talk) 20:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: If the material can be verified with better sources than IMDB, then she's right on the cusp of notability. Bearian (talk) 14:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is being a producer of some very small films or very low-level crew on one or two films enough for WP:N? I don't think it is... — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 16:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cmt The Woodsman is not a very small film. Major awards and Kevin Bacon as lead. Though it would be an easy shoe-in if she had been an exec on that. --Moloch09 (talk) 11:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She is notable as a producer. Virtually every project she has been involved with has won an award. I have flagged this article for rescue, and I intend to work on it as soon as I can find the time. Untick (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Theres hundreds of credited people in a movie, just because the movie has got an award doesn't mean all of them need wikipedia pages. I don't believe your reasoning is valid enough for WP:N. There needs to be reliable secondary sources about HER. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 21:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, and sometimes even more. But, and with respects, we are not discussing a PA or a Boom Operator or Gaffer. This is someone just a little higher up the ladder. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Have expanded and sourced (not to IMDB), her involvement in and the awards of a few of her major films. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep We're not dealing with Steven Speilberg, but I think there's enough notability to warrant inclusion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep after cutting all the trivial bits out of the biography. I think Michael's saved it.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 02:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added a few FACT tags and removed any references to movies that are not listed on IMDB or any other site that I saw. Theres still a huge chunk of the article written as a autobiography without ANY references. The awards for the movies she was in is unreferenced, and the sources found (not imdb sources) for movies she was credited in are very poor, listing only one or two films. I admit shes credited as a producer for some films, but not listed on any of the films we have links for with that title. I don't know where IMDB gets their information, either from the studio or if they allow an individual to update their own pages with credits. But there needs to be more references that she was a co-producer for these films (reliable secondary sources). If all the information that was unreferenced was removed there wouldn't be anything left in the article except a list of films and her name. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 03:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep needs more citations. Though some of the films are notable and award winning, the production credit on the multiple award The Woodsman is of "co-producer". This could mean virtually anything though the IMDB credit is quite high on the billing. --Moloch09 (talk) 11:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I discovered through research that Ms. Hoffman is credited under three names across the net. Valerie Hoffman, Valerie Howlett-Hoffman, and Valerie Howlett. Searches to include these additional names has filled in a lot of blanks and allowed the adding of additional citations to the article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Impressive sleuthing I think this does push her over into the keep category, though the current work section is a bit like future news - they're always announcing films that won't happen (but the Sir Ben collaboration mitigates). The DGA credit is pretty normal though, shouldn't be peacocked. --Moloch09 (talk) 11:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I agree about the DGA as her works speak for themselves and being a member of the DGA is not a notability, simply a place where one pays dues. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clear fail of WP:BIO most relevantly WP:CREATIVE. No non-trivial mentions in any independent reliable sources should equal no encyclopedia article. IMDB is not reliable for very much, certainly not to fulfill notability. From creative, full: "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries." Once this is referenced, Valerie Hoffman is an epic fail.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear in case it was somehow missed, (a) IMDB is not used as a source in the article and (b) her works have indeed won both critical attention and awards, which has been asserted and referenced. She does pass WP:BIO in that (a) A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. (b) If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. (c) Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject. Oops. She passes. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 14:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

cmt forget IMDB. Repeating back b to you with some bolding for emphasis. "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." There is only trivial coverage in secondary sources, the fact that unknown movies she had minor roles in (line producer?) won minor awards establishes nothing about her (if they do, we should have an article on every gaffer that worked on a movie that won a minor award), and there is no independent verification available about any facts of her life. Her work has received no critical attention and she has been the subject of no coverage in secondary sources. Oops. She fails.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She meets the criteria for WP:CREATIVE, as she has played a major role in co-creating several a significant works as identified by the several award winning films that she has produced and co-produced. Esasus (talk) 17:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 16:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paula Murray

WP:BLP1E, failing wp:bio except for the WP:UNDUE WP:COATRACK content. Seems to be part of an attack by bloggers - see the poorly and unsourced material before clean up in this and Sunday Express Dunblane controversy. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sunday Express Dunblane controversy. -- Jeandré, 2009-03-19t09:57z 09:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom Sceptre ^(talk) 13:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone with an IP address in the 137.222. range has tried to remove Sceptre's comment twice already. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Summary or speedy deletion is employed only where there is no BLP-compliant version to which to revert or an obvious means by which to remove purportedly violative material; here one might remove the references to the Dunblane story controversy and be left with the two lead sentences, which assert notability sufficiently that A7 should not apply (and to which no BLP1E issues attach, even if it is those issues that led to the article's creation), and so excision of the material, if you believe it to be present BLP problems (I don't, but it's not an issue to which I care to devote energy), not deletion of the article, is appropriate. (That does not, of course, foreclose our discussion here, where the nominator raises legitimate concerns about the subject's notability, to which we rightly give consideration.) Joe 21:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Eusebeus (talk) 20:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge I'd say "merge into the Sunday Express Controversy" article, though that may well be merged/deleted itself. If it gets kept, I'd favour merging this article into that. If the other article gets merged, then also merge this into whatever section in whatever article it gets merged into. Not notable enough in her own right, though it's not a speedy because all that avoiding a speedy requires is that notability is asserted - several references are a pretty strong assertion, though obviously not necessarily proof. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 00:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete correct use of ONEEVENT. There is nothing for real notability with or without the story. DGG (talk) 15:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to River City. MBisanz ^talk 01:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Grant

Non-notable Tdg1986 (talk) 08:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ENTERTAINER and wp:v: [56]. -- Jeandré, 2009-03-19t10:21z

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable - The Rolling Camel (talk) 01:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the one line to River City. There's not enough material there to justify a separate article. PS: Please read User:Stifle/Don't say non-notable, thanks!—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 02:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep Stone the Crow, Redirect the others to their album articles. Avi (talk) 05:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lifer (song)

Non-notable song, which fails with the criteria. Canniba loki 03:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because these songs fails with the criteria:

Redirect, and possibly merge to the relevant album article. While the main article might be a problem because of its qualifier, none of the additional pages show any signs of being bad redirect titles. I believe that Lifer (song) also qualifies because it would help point to the right page from a hatnote or possibly future dabpage - Mgm|^(talk) 11:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 14:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect to respective album articles. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 14:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect all to relevant album articles. JamesBurns (talk) 06:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Stone the Crow, charted, now sourced. Redirect the rest. Duffbeerforme (talk) 04:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete & redirect, the only song that charted consists mainly of original research. Deletion Mutation 16:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Blocked sockpuppet. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 20:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to The_13_Ghosts_of_Scooby-Doo. per DHowell (histmerge done) Black Kite 18:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Van Ghoul (Scooby-Doo)

Article about a fictional character who has no notability independent of the series he appears in. Prod contested. Not a viable redirect, as Vincent Van Ghoul is already a redirect to The 13 Ghosts of Scooby-Doo. KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Query – why isn't a merger (as indicated on the article page) being discussed? MuZemike 00:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No prejudice toward merging useful content; however, I still believe this article title should be deleted as non-viable redirect per my comment above. If it would be more prudent to merge, redirect this page, then db-r3 it I'd be open to that. KuyaBriBri^Talk 08:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I should also note that the author placed the merge tag on the page but never started the discussion. KuyaBriBri^Talk 08:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The 13 Ghosts of Scooby-Doo. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
History merge to Vincent Van Ghoul (to preserve edit history at undisambiguated title), then merge and redirect to The 13 Ghosts of Scooby-Doo. DHowell (talk) 05:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What DHowell said : ) - jc37 08:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What Jc37 said. Hiding T 12:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Lei Gong. While it seems that this is not a hoax, the lack of article development in the past 4 years (beyond this one-line sentence) hints at that there will be no article improvement in the future either. Redirection seems like the best trade-off between opinions expressed in this AfD. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Xiang

Not notable or informative. No reason to have it. Possible hoax Wetman88 (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--I'm no expert, but in the absence of references or anything else, and without sources on Google, I see no reason to keep. Drmies (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's not a hoax [57], but the lack of more than a few mentions suggests this isn't a widely accepted part of the legend of Lei Gong. An intriguing character. Unlike some gods of thunder, Lei Gong knows better than to try to throw lightning bolts and drive at the same time. Perhaps the legend of A Xiang can be part of an ad campaign for not talking on your cell while driving, or at least for having a designated driver if you go out partying. Mandsford (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- At first this looked like a good solid ref, but it's lulu.com. Google isn't giving me much that isn't sourced from wikipedia. Artw (talk) 22:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. This AfD was one of the last actions of User:Wetman88 before he was indef-blocked for vandalism and disruption (having previously been blocked yesterday). At worst the article should be merged/redirected to Lei Gong. The given reference at that page, The Encyclopedia of Eastern Mythology by Rachel Storm (ISBN: 9780754800699), may provide more info, so I'd recommend leaving this page here for the moment in the (vain?) hope it can be expanded in future. --DeLarge (talk) 21:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non notable, no WP:RS Jezhotwells (talk) 00:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now: Its not obviously non-notable, unless someone can posit an argument to that effect. While there is no evidence for notability yet, I'd say post a notability template and give it a few months to see if someone can find some refs. Could turn into an interesting article later. Locke9k (talk) 22:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prodea Systems

Undeveloped company; fails guidelines for the notability of corporations. Media coverage is solely due to financial sponsorship of a notable space tourist. Remainder appear to be press releases or email signatures. slakr^\ talk / 08:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. While the article says they are a consumer tech firm, it also suggests they don't have a product yet: The company has announced its first product will be a consumer-oriented home network for digital entertainment. Unless they actually have something on the shelves, third party reviews and notice are much more unlikely. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, non-notable at present. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comatose Vigil

Article about a band without significant assertion of notability or sources. -- BeezHive (talk|contribs) 04:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for non-notability. No sources, none to be found, and no albums one notable labels (I don't hold Solitude to be notable, and there's only one on that label anyway). Drmies (talk) 04:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 01:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 14:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, come back when line up is known or any sources can be found. Deletion Mutation 16:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Blocked sockpuppet. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 20:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 23:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black Market Hero

I believe this group is not notable, as I can find no reliable sourcing to verify the claims made. I had a brief search, which didn't turn up anything... --Izno (talk) 23:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Band is notable per WP:Band #6 - band members have been in other notable bands. There is an entry for the band on Allmusic. A Google search results in many hits for the band. I agree that the article has unsourced claims, but per WP:ATD, the article should be improved/edited as an alternative to deletion. --Rudimae (talk) 04:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Number 6 looks fairly unstable to me. I would have to even further trim it to keep the verifiable stuff, but even if the article is verifiable, that doesn't mean it has RSs... As for Google search, see WP:GOOGLETEST. The number of hits is not a factor of notability (though it increases the chance someone will find the reliable source that I am asking for!). --Izno (talk) 14:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I realized after I wrote that about Google that I should have been more specific. I didn't mean that because there are X number of hits that it means they're notable. I meant a Google search provided links to other sites, such as Allmusic, that verify notability. --Rudimae (talk) 22:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Allmusic and Rockdetector entries are a good start. A few news items also.--Michig (talk) 07:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Allmusic shouldn't be used as an RS except where the writer is known to be reliable. Can you prove that Corey is known for that? As for rockdetector, that certainly doesn't allow BMH to satisfy notability, as all it is is a mention, whereas the GNG (And MUSIC#C1) say that the group needs the reliable sourcing with in depth analysis to prove notability. Could you do me the favor of looking for any reliable source that would prove notability? --Izno (talk) 14:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allmusic fulfils the requirements of being a reliable source, at least as far as the biographies and reviews on the site are concerned, and there is nothing in the link you provided to demostrate otherwise, and I don't see why their writers need to be independently proven to be reliable. WP:GNG says nothing about requiring "in depth analysis" and neither does MUSIC#C1; They require significant coverage in reliable sources. The band also passed MUSIC#C6 as they have several members from other notable bands (40 Below Summer - 5 albums, plenty of coverage) and Flaw (3 albums, major-label releases).--Michig (talk) 14:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:BAND (criteria 2–12); criteria 1 = It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable. I do not have how to ensure that the information that is in the webpages of Allmusic and Rockdetector was not sent by someone related to this "band". Canniba loki 19:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allmusic biographies are written by their staff. Rockdetector entries are written by the author of several published rock music guides, Garry Sharpe-Young. I don't really understand your reasoning.--Michig (talk) 19:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I raised the issue of the usage of allmusic.com as a reliable source on the appropriate forum on wikipedia Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#allmusic.com. The website refuses to correct glaring mistakes notably in getting it's credits and personnel listed correctly. One of their most experienced reviewers even claimed two artists with different names were one-in-the same artist, which was patently untrue. As experienced in the Palladium AfD not long ago, they even mixed up album releases from different artists. What's frustrating is they have a mechanism for reporting errors but they seem unwilling to correct their errors even when pointed out to them with citations. I think we need to revisit sometime what can be used as a reliable source for music article. JamesBurns (talk) 01:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 14:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: essentially a band in name only - no official releases. See my comments on allmusic.com above. JamesBurns (talk) 01:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC) strike sockpuppets, see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/JamesBurns/Archive Flatscan (talk) 04:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A band that has toured and which is recording an album is not a "band in name only".--Michig (talk) 07:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - limited coverage, non notable. A-Kartoffel (talk) 07:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC) strike sockpuppets, see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/JamesBurns/Archive Flatscan (talk) 04:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Since this band contains several members from two other notable bands, deletion is really not a good idea. If the band contained members from only one notable band, with the amount of coverage they have received, mentioning BMH in that band's article would be a good option, but it would make no sense to add this to both the 40 Below Summer and Flaw articles, so the only sensible option is to keep this article here. --Michig (talk) 08:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, not yet notable. Deletion Mutation 15:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC) [reply]

- Blocked sockpuppet. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 20:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was already merged. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Bashundhura City mall fire

WP:NOTNEWS §hawn hath 02:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and retitle (to Bashundhara City shopping complex ) - The Article should be about the Mall itself. The fire, and the size of it, makes it notable and should constitute a section of it... not the entirety of the Article. I can work on it a bit tonight. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The move has been compleated. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bashundhara City -- @Exit2DOS2000, there is already the article on the mall, with appropriate section on the fire. No need to duplicate the content. User:Hatashe just copy pasted content from the existing article on the mall, and then also pasted the entire news item from Wikinews (contrary to Wikinews licensing). This should be redirected to the mall article. --Ragib (talk) 05:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case Merge & Redir. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 06:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, there is not much to merge. As I mentioned, User:Hatashe did a fork of the original page by copy-paste, and also did a (copyvio) paste of content from WikiNews. Sorry that you had to spend time fixing the forked page ... how about taking a look at the existing article? :) Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 06:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing the forked page wasnt a big problem, I just wish the Nom. had put in as much effort as you did, and noted that this was a WP:FORK of Bashundhara City. (no barb intended, I AGF). Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Harrison (actor)

Unnotable actor who played minor roles in a few films. Falls far short of WP:ENTERTAINER Lets drink Tea 22:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 02:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a quick look at [this actor's page on http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0365596/ IMDB] shows only various minor bit parts and the like. Would not appear to meet WP:ENTERTAINER. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ENTERTAINER. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on notability grounds. Orderinchaos 01:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tumult in the Clouds (Book-1990)

Fails WP:NB Taroaldo (talk) 23:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The book is actually The aviation art of Bob Cunningham OCLC 26404228, and only 11 libraries in WorldCat hold it [58] DGG (talk) 03:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unnotable book; fails WP:NB per above Lets drink Tea 00:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tumult in the Clouds (Book-1998)

Fails WP:NB Wikipedia isn't a library catalogue. Taroaldo (talk) 23:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a very important book 85 holdings in worldcat [59].DGG (talk) 03:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage found for this book Lets drink Tea 00:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.